Cooperative Grace - Catholic view

[LaGrange]

Intro before the Intro,

This is going to be a very long introduction to the Banezian View of Predestination. Premotion (Operating and Cooperating Grace) is all about how God works through the soul. I didn’t realize it was as long as it was until I did the final preparations to put it on the forum. It’s going to be 22 long posts. I contacted those in charge of this forum to see if there would be a problem with this but didn’t hear anything. I hope it’s OK. There doesn’t seem to be a limitation on the length and number of posts. Since there seems to be a good amount of interest on what I’ve posted so far, I thought I would try and send the whole thing. Also, I was concerned about the copyright laws on Garrigou-LaGrange’s Book so I contacted Tan Books and they said it was ok for me to quote the book. Later, I found out it was in public domain anyway. I want to thank you for allowing me to share this with you.

LaGrange

 

[LaGrange]

(1) Cooperative Grace - Opening Remarks

Prayers before Study

(composed by St. Thomas Aquinas)

Grant me grace, O merciful God to desire ardently all that is pleasing to Thee, to examine it prudently, to acknowledge it truthfully and to accomplish it perfectly, for the praise and glory of Thy name. Amen.

O Creator ineffable, who of the riches of Thy wisdom didst appoint three hierarchies of Angels and didst set them in wondrous order over the highest heavens, and who didst apportion the elements of the world most wisely: do Thou, who art in truth the fountain of light and wisdom, deign to shed upon the darkness of my understanding the rays of Thine infinite brightness, and remove far from me the twofold darkness in which I was born, namely, sin and ignorance. Do Thou, who givest speech to the tongues of little children, instruct my tongue and pour into my lips the grace of Thy benediction. Give me keenness of apprehension, capacity for remembering, method and ease in learning, insight in interpretation, and copious eloquence in speech. Instruct my beginning, direct my progress, and set Thy seal upon the finished work, Thou, who art true God and true Man, who livest and reignest world without end. Amen.

(1) Cooperative Grace - Opening Remarks

Hello Everyone,

Before I begin my posts on Cooperating Grace, I want to say a few things. First of all, this is the most controversial part of Soteriology and, because of that, much has been written about it. The scholastic language is sometimes difficult to understand but is needed to provide the most precise language. The use of this precision language was the result of controversies and arguments that demanded more precise definitions and distinctions. Philosophical terms and ideas including formal logic were used to accomplish this. Also, the Latin and Greek Languages themselves are used which are much more precise languages. I’m sure you know all of this. I’m a purist so I try to use the purest Catholic Sources to back up my Faith but I could still interpret them wrong. I probably made mistakes in my comments. This is why I quote from Aquinas, Garrigou-LaGrange and others in their own words and give their sources in my outline. Please look at these quotes yourself if you are interested and read the books instead of just my outline. This is my caveat. My contribution is introducing this view to you and giving you a little commentary. Also, I give you what I call the Big Picture, by giving you an analogy. You will see this later. I am presenting the Banezian View of Predestination (Bannesians) named after the Dominican, Fr Domingo Banez (1528-1604). Banez entered the debate against the Jesuit, Fr Luis Molina (1535-1600) (Molinists) beginning in the 1580’s and it ended up with the famous debate titled “de Auxiliis”. This debate was so controversial and so destructive that, from what I understand, St. Robert Bellarmine was calling for another Council to settle the matter (Divine Causality and Human Free Choice, Mutava, P33). Instead, the Jesuit, Fr. Gregory of Valencia, made the recommendation that the debate be held in the presence of the Pope (Pope Clement VIII) and this is what happened. The main part of this debate was held in Rome between 1602-1606. Molina’s successors took up the Jesuit side. There were 85 sessions of debates (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917) with each session lasting between 4-8 hours (I read somewhere). So, the whole controversy lasted from 1582 to 1607. It was never settled. This is probably why you don’t hear Catholics discussing Predestination very often. The Banezian View is sometimes referred to as a “Compatibilist View”. I’m not sure if this is a proper label because the Compatibilist View says that Determinism and Free Will are compatible. The Banezian View says Predeterminism and Free Will are compatible. It seems that there is a difference. I guess any label is ok, as long as you don’t dismiss the Banezian View as a compromise on God’s Sovereignty. The Early Church Fathers were Banezian in the sense that they knew Free Will and Grace went together and eventually worked it out (at least set the parameters for it), especially through St. Augustine and St. Prosper of Aquitaine. The Banezian View is sometimes viewed as somewhat Calvinistic, and there are similarities, yet, as I’ve said, this view also includes a Supernatural Free Will which Calvin denied.

Here are my main sources:

Summa Theologica - St. Thomas Aquinas

Summa Contra Gentiles - St. Thomas Aquinas

Predestination - Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange (Tan Books, 1939, 1998 - seems to be out of print right now - It’s on the internet in the public domain)


Abbreviations and Labels

Summa Theologica - (sources abbreviated ex: STh., I Q.23 a.1)

Summa Contra Gentiles - (sources abbreviated ex: SCG 3.91.3-numbers are book, chapter, paragraph)

Predestination - (the book sources are the page numbers given throughout the posts - “undocumented paragraphs” are Garrigou-LaGrange’s. There are a couple of times where I shortened a quote by changing a couple of insignificant words. Also, there are a few times where I label his quote with “GL” when I thought it might be confusing as to whose quote it was.)

My Comments - My explanation of what the others are saying is labeled “My Comment”

Analogy - My thoughts on how it might be portrayed in the analogy is labeled “Analogy”


Other Sources:

There are many sources I used in my understanding but I won’t list them here. I would mention 4 other direct sources on Premotion:

Quotes - from St. Augustine (I list only a couple in my posts)

Divine Causality and Human Free Choice - Dr. Robert J. Mutava (this book is hard to find - it is a doctoral dissertation, published in 2016)

The Mystery of Predestination - John Salza (Tan Books, 2010)

Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin: A Thomistic Analysis - Dr. Taylor Patrick O’Neil (Catholic University of America Press, 2019)

(I have the book but I haven’t read it all)


(Most books on the Banezian View are in Latin and have not been translated into the English Language.)

Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange strongly rejects Molinism in his book and strongly supports the Banezian View. So, he is in the same camp with Domingo Soto (1494-1560), Diego Alvarez (1550-1635), Thomas de Lemos (1555-1629), Norbert Del Prado (1852-1918) and others. By the way, the Dominican, Domingo Soto, was made imperial theologian and helped much to formulate the dogmatic decrees on justification at the Council of Trent (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917). Banez worked under Soto in the 1550’s. Predestination, by Fr Garrigou-LaGrange, is the book I am using to write my posts. In the first half of the book, he covers the Banezian View of Predestination in general. Then, in the second, half, he covers Premotion, which is his view of Free Will and how God works through the soul. Most of the information comes from Pages 242-335 which is the last half of the book. I don’t want to discourage anyone from reading this book but, as you will see, if you are not use to reading scholastic theology you may find it difficult. In the book he quotes Scripture 728 times.

In my last post I will give Bible Verses that back up Cooperating Grace (Premotion 7). These verses only prove the existence of Cooperating Grace. I am not exegeting verses to show how cooperating grace works or is applied in each one. That would take too long. Maybe later.

If you find that all the posts are more than you want to know and study, just read the posts that show the simple explanation of Premotion, the Analogy, how it is applied in an example and some quotes. Then, skip Premotion 1 (approx. post #10) through Premotion 6 and go straight to Premotion 7 (the last post) and look at the Bible Verses (scroll half way down). It was hard for me to decide whether to put all my notes on here or just give a very simple explanation on how Premotion works. I decided to give you all my notes to help convince you that we are not Pelagian and believe grace works through the soul ALL the way through the process and that we avoid many heresies with these definitions and distinctions. By studying the whole outline, it may give you more confidence in this view. In giving you all the notes, it may also help to convince you that Premotion had been worked out really by St. Augustine and explained in more detail by St. Thomas Aquinas.

I’ve enjoyed putting this together.

I hope and pray you are blessed by these posts!

LaGrange

 

[LaGrange]

(2) Cooperative Grace - Quotes


Loraine Boettner

Book Title: Calvinism in History


Sources:

Monergism.com

Soteriology101.com (Leighton Flowers)

Leighton Flowers quotes Section 1 on his website


Section 1. Before the Reformation


“It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a cooperation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect....”


My Comment: Boettner admits that the Early Church Fathers believed in a Supernatural Free Will (Cooperating Grace = Synergism). He is saying the Early Church Fathers were wrong even though he also admits they were trying to reconcile the sovereignty of God with the use of man’s Free Will which we believe was done by St. Augustine and later by the Scholastics. When Boettner says “It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation”, it says that exact thing in scripture. It meant that you work out your salvation (Phil 2:12) with God’s grace (Phil 2:13) as it says in the next verse. (see St. Augustine, Against the Pelagians, 1.18.36 Quote Below)


Section 2. The Reformation


The Reformation was essentially a revival of Augustinianism and through it evangelical Christianity again came into its own. It is to be remembered that Luther, the first leader in the Reformation, was an Augustinian monk and that it was from this rigorous theology that he formulated his great principle of justification by faith alone. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all the other outstanding reformers of that period were thoroughgoing predestinarians. In his work, “The Bondage of the Will,” Luther stated the doctrine as emphatically and in a form quite as extreme as can be found among any of the reformed theologians. Melanchthon in his earlier writings designated the principle of Predestination as the fundamental principle of Christianity. He later modified this position, however, and brought in a kind of “synergism” in which God and man were supposed to cooperate in the process of salvation. The position taken by the early Lutheran Church was gradually modified. Later Lutherans let go the doctrine altogether, denounced it in its Calvinistic form, and came to hold a doctrine of universal grace and universal atonement, which doctrine has since become the accepted doctrine of the Lutheran Church. In regard to this doctrine Luther’s position in the Lutheran Church is similar to that of Augustine in the Roman Catholic Church,—that is, he is a heretic of such unimpeachable authority that he is more admired than censured.


My Comment: Loraine Boettner says Philip Melanchthon moved the Lutherans back to believing in some form of Cooperating Grace (Synergism). This is the same thing as Supernatural Free Will (our Will with God’s Grace in it).



Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.18.36

(420ad)


“And that no one is forced by God’s power unwillingly either into evil or good, but that when God forsakes a man, he deservedly goes to evil, and that when God assists, without deserving he is converted to good. For a man is not good if he is unwilling, but by the grace of God he is even assisted to the point of being willing; because it is not vainly written, “For it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do for His good pleasure,” and, “The will is prepared by God.” (Prov 8:35)


My Comment: St. Augustine ties Phil 2:13 in with Prov 8:35. He says the Grace of God “Assists” our willing.

Notice: It says “NO FORCE”.

Prov 8:35 He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord. (DRV)

Prov 8:35 (Septuigant) For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and in them is prepared favour from the Lord. (KJV uses “Obtain” - Strong’s #6329)

In the Septuigant, which St. Augustine is quoting, Prov 8:35 uses the word “Prepared” (ἑτοιμάζεται)(Strong’s #2680 - Matt 11:10, Luke 7:27, 1 Pet 3:20).


***************************************************


St. Augustine

Free Will - Grace is in the Will (Intrinsic)


Retractations

Title: Three Books on Free Choice

1,8,4 (Book, Chapter, Section)

(426-428ad)


St. Augustine: “In these and similar statements of mine, because there was no mention of the grace of God, which was not the subject under discussion at the time, the Pelagians think or may think that we held their opinion. But they are mistaken in thinking this. For it is precisely the will by which one sins and lives rightly, a subject we discussed here. Unless this will, then, is freed by the grace of God from the servitude by which it has been made “a servant of sin,”21 and unless it is aided to overcome its vices, mortal men cannot live rightly and devoutly. And if this divine beneficence by which the will is freed had not preceded it, it would be given according to its merits and would not be grace, which is certainly given gratuitously.”


My Comment:

Unless this will, then, is freed by the grace of God - describes Free Will (Grace is in it)

It says “unless This Will” - The SAME Will (Not Replaced with a different Will)

unless it is aided to overcome its vices - “Aided” means “Help” to overcome vices (sin) “In the Future” (Prevenient and Actual Graces)

if this divine beneficence by which the will is freed had not preceded it, - God’s Grace “Precedes” our ability to move toward Christ (Prevenient and Actual Graces)


*****************************************************

SA

Garrigou-LaGrange P121-122

St. Augustine - God does not Command the Impossible - Grace can prevent (Prevenient) Sinning


On Nature and Grace (49.43)

(415ad)


....Wherefore,” he adds, “if all men could be proved to be sinners, it would not by any means prejudice our own definite position, in insisting not so much on what men are, as on what they are able to be.” He is right for once to allow that no man living is justified in God’s sight.He contends, however, that this is not the question, but that the point lies in the possibility of a man’s not sinning,—on which subject it is unnecessary for us to take ground against him; for, in truth, I do not much care about expressing a definite opinion on the question, whether in the present life there ever have been, or now are, or ever can be, any persons who have had, or are having, or are to have, the love of God so perfectly as to admit of no addition to it (for nothing short of this amounts to a most true, full, and perfect righteousness). For I ought not too sharply to contend as to when, or where, or in whom is done that which I confess and maintain can be done by the will of man, aided by the grace of God.


My Comment: St. Augustine is saying that Pelagius asserts man cannot help from sinning. They were discussing Rom 3:23 which starts in chapter 48. St. Augustine says man can avoid sinning “aided by the grace of God.” St. Augustine doesn’t feel like it is necessary to give an example but says it is possible. St. Augustine then goes on in chapter 50 to say “God does not Command the impossible”.

***********************************************

 

[LaGrange]

On Nature and Grace (50.43)

(415ad)


St. Augustine: God therefore does not command impossibilities; but in His command He counsels you both to do what you can for yourself, and to ask His aid in what you cannot do.


My Comment: St. Augustine implies that it is possible to keep the Commandments.

Keep the Commandments-

John 14:15, Matt 15:3, Mark 10:19, 1 John 5:3

"Charity of God" (in this verse) - Keeping the Commandments- Gal 5:6

1 Cor 10:13 - God will not let you be tempted beyond your strength


Canon xi. No Imputation - If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. (Trent, Denz #821 [DS 1561])


Canon xviii. Commandments not impossible to keep - If any one shall say, that the commandments of God are, even for a man that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema. (Trent, Denz #828 [DS 1568])


Re: Trent, Canons 11 & 18

“In the eleventh canon, which is the counterpart of this last quoted canon (canon 18), the Council of Trent has in mind two propositions of St. Augustine, whose doctrine the Protestants appealed to in the following passages, though interpreting him in the wrong sense: “God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding advises you to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot do. In saying God never commands what is impossible, St. Augustine had equivalently affirmed that in a certain way He wills all men to be Saved, in this sense that He wills to make it really possible for all to keep the commandments, and that no one is lost except through his own fault.” (Garrigou-LaGrange, p121-122)


********************************************

St. Augustine

On Grace & Free Will

Both Grace & Free Will Necessary


Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 4.7

(427ad)



1 Corinthians 7:37 (D-R): For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.


1 Corinthians 7:37 (KJV) Nevertheless he that lstandeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.


Philippians 2:13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.


St. Aug: “Well, the Lord was one day conversing on this very topic, when His disciples remarked to Him, “If such be the case of a man with his wife, it is not good to marry.” He then answered them, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” And was it not to Timothy’s free will that the apostle appealed, when he exhorted him in these words: “Keep thyself continent”? He also explained the ‘power of the Will’ in this matter when He said, “Having no necessity, but possessing power over his own will, to keep his virgin.” And yet “all men do not receive this saying, except those to whom the power is given.”.....whereas they to whom it is given so will as to accomplish what they will. In order, therefore, that this saying, which is not received by all men, may yet be received by some, there are both the gift of God and free will.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, ch7 )


My Comment: St. Augustine quotes from 1 Cor 7:37 which Johann Eck used against Luther in support of Free Will. I think St. Augustine explained it perfectly. [Eck - His book ‘Loci Communes’ (1525ad)]

When St. Augustine says, “And yet “all men do not receive this saying, except those to whom the power is given”, he is speaking of a special calling (Vocation - ex: Religious Order) and a special grace, and not about the Elect vs Non-Elect. By “Power is given” he means grace.


************************************************

St. Augustine

On Grace and Free Will (427ad)

Cooperative Grace - Helping or Working Together



On Grace and Free Will 5.12

(427ad)


2 Cor 6:1 AND we helping do exhort you that you receive not the grace of God in vain.


St. Augustine: This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as when he says to them, “We beseech you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.”(2 Cor 6:1) Now, how could he so enjoin them, if they received God’s grace in such a manner as to lose their own will? Nevertheless, lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing without the grace of God, after saying, “His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all,” he immediately added the qualifying clause, “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”(1 Cor 15:10) In other words, Not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him.



My Comment: Look at what St. Augustine says in this last sentence. He describes God’s Grace and man’s Will BOTH labored together. This means internally.


*************************************************

Augustine

God is Helping & not doing it all

Will is Prepared (Free Will); Merit After Justification - Faith is NOT ALONE


Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 3.7

(428-429ad)


St. Augustine Confesses That He Had Formerly Been In Error Concerning The Grace Of God


All the following is from St. Augustine:


“...to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.’ I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, ....


....‘A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.’ (Rom 11:5) Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; ......


My Comment: This may look like merits are ruled out but keep reading. All he is saying is that grace “precedes” merit - Justification precedes Merit.


....lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt (my quote: Rom 4:4), be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: ‘For the same apostle says,“The same God which worketh all in all;” but it was never said, God believeth (DRV = Worketh) all in all;’ (1 Cor 12:6) and then added, ‘Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Ghost to them that believe:’ I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. Both, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love.....


My Comment: St. Augustine is saying this:

False Statement - What we believe is from our own strength and what good works we do comes from God.

True Statement - Both come from God AND BOTH come from US or from our Will made Free (Free Will).


....For faith is not alone, but, as it is written, ‘Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (Eph 6:23) And what I said a little after,—‘For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Ghost, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,’—is true indeed;.....



St. Augustine


Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 10.16

(412ad)


....otherwise grace is no more grace,”(Rom 11:6) since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them,—in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfil the law.


My Comment: It says “but that we may be able (enabled) to do them (Good Works)”. This means our same Will is enabled to do Good Works. Also Notice: We are given Grace so we can do what? Good Works. Good Works are what we are supposed to do “in God’s Grace”.

...in order that we may be able to fulfil the law (Commandments)”. Notice: So we are able to keep the Commandments.

 

[LaGrange]

My Comment: This is pretty clear - We Believe and Will with the Power from God. At this point, St. Augustine doesn’t mean the Salutary Act is done. He is just saying our Believing and Willing are made capable by the Power of God. Notice: He separates Believing and Willing. Not just believing but gives the power of Willing. (I would also quote Gal 5:6 and also Eph 2:8-10)


....but by the same rule both are also God’s, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. .....


My Comment: Preparatory Grace - God prepares the soul with the grace (Gift) of Faith and our Will.


......And thus what I subsequently said also: ‘Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficient, nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;’ and thereupon added: ‘It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works,’—this is absolutely most true......


My Comment: Notice, “Calling” comes first which is, by definition, Prevenient and Actual Graces. These are Preparatory Graces. Notice: “God gives strength to us that run...” This shows God is “Helping” and not doing it all. Mysteriously, our Wills, strengthened by this help, participate in the process of moving toward Justification but not Justification itself.


.....But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. Therefore, what I said a little afterwards: ‘For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works,’—I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift...


My Comment: Merit after Justification - St. Augustine is saying those that God Elects He begins by giving man the Gift of Faith prior to Merit through Good Works.


.......But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: ‘For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.’ And this indeed is true;.....


My Comment: After Justification, with God’s grace (God’s Gift) we Merit a FURTHER growth in Faith.


.......but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God’s mercy,—that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle’s words: ‘I obtained mercy to be a believer (DRV = Faithful).’ (1 Cor 7:25) He does not say, ‘Because I was a believer.’ Therefore, although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore, also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: ‘Because, if it is of God’s mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe, and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;’......


My Comment: Grace comes BEFORE Faith Causally (Operative Grace). This means God goes first and elevates our intellect and Will intrinsically so we are able to believe. Faith is Grace and is instantaneously in us with the preaching of the gospel, however, God is the one putting it there. He moves first.


—although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God’s purpose.”


********************************************

Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins 2.18.31

(412ad)


Book 2, Ch 31


Forasmuch then as our turning away from God is our own act, and this is evil will; but our turning to God is not possible, except He rouses and helps us, and this is good will,—what have we that we have not received? (1 Cor 4:7)


My Comment: God “Helps” us - the SAME Will - God does not replace the Will


************************************************


St. Augustine

Predetermination & Non-Necessitating


Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 16.32

(427ad)


GL: God’s Decree or Will Predetermines a salutary act then God’s Omnipotence (Premotion) moves the Will, not by force, to assure the execution of the decree (p310)


St. Augustine: For it is certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him for such a force of will as suffices to make us act by the willing. It is certain that it is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said (as he has just now expressed it), “The will is prepared by the Lord.” (Prov 8:35) Of the same Lord it is said, “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way doth He will.”(Ps 37:23; Ps 36:23 KJV) Of the same Lord again it is said, “It is God who worketh in you, even to will!” (Phil 2:13) It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” (Ezekiel 36:27) When he says, “I will make you … to do them”, what else does He say in fact than, “I will take away from you your heart of stone,” (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezek 36:26) from which used to arise your inability to act, “and I will give you a heart of flesh,” (Ezek 36:26) in order that you may act?”


My Comment: This should be clear. When St. Augustine says “we keep the Commandments if we will” does not mean only if we want to and that we don’t have to keep them. It means “we keep the Commandments if we exercise our Will to keep them”. St. Augustine says God “Prepares the Will”.

When St. Augustine quotes Ezek 36:27, the key word seems to be “make”. “Make” doesn’t mean force but “make possible”. Why? Because St. Augustine then quotes Ezek 11:19 which says I will take away your heart of stone. St. Augustine says this means that this is taking away your “Inability” to act. (Ezek 36:27 - Clementine Latin Vulgate = Faciam = make; Heb = Cause -Strong’s #6213; Greek Septuigant = Make - Strong’s #4160)


St. Augustine - Free Will


Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 30.52

(412ad)


Do we then by grace make void free will? God forbid! Nay, rather we establish free will. For even as the law by faith, so free will by grace, is not made void, but established.


My Comment: Very clear. Free Will is established by Grace. This is Supernatural Free Will.


***********************************************

Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace 12.38

(426-427ad)


Therefore aid is brought to the infirmity of human will, so that it might be unchangeably and invincibly6 influenced by divine grace; and thus, although weak, it still might not fail, nor be overcome by any adversity. Thus it happens that man’s will, weak and incapable, in good as yet small, may persevere by God’s strength;


My Comment: The Will is “influenced” by God’s Grace. He describes this Grace as an “Aid”. The Will is helped (aided) by God’s Grace - the SAME Will.


***********************************************


Augustine, On Nature and Grace 31.35

(415ad)


“In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates (precedes) us. He anticipates (precedes) us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates (precedes) us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified.”


My Comment: Cooperating Grace (fellow-workers) - we work with God because God has given us His grace first (anticipates or precedes). This is Prevenient Grace.

 

[LaGrange]

3) Cooperative Grace - 2 Approaches in trying to Explain - (1) Salvation Process or (2) Analogy:


(1) Salvation Process in a simple form:


God is always in action and always was in action. He always existed. God keeps people in existence. God is out always helping and doing things for all people. In one particular case, God decides to come give you something special, a gift, because He loves you and wants you to be closer to Him. The gift is from Him but separate from Him. God is not literally giving Himself to you but giving you a gift from him and you need this gift to be happy now and forever. God gives you this gift usually through other people. This gift opens your mind and heart to Him. He loves you so much that he is even willing to let you go if that is what you want. He won’t make you love Him back. That means you have to do something with this gift. You have to act on it. With this gift, you are able to see things He wants you to do. He knows there are other things you could do but He lets you choose either the thing He wants you to do or do the other things. One of the things you could do is to sin and move away from God. If you do, God is just in punishing you. God promises that you will never be using the gift by yourself and, when you consent and do what He wants you to do, He Will reward you with more gifts and make you more holy. God will fill you up. The bigger the gift gets the closer you are to God. As you get closer, the more you want to get even closer. The desire to want to get closer comes from that bigger gift. You can see God better and that makes you want to get closer. The closer you get to God the less fear you have of death because you have that confidence that death cannot separate you from Him. When you are in heaven, God rewards you for all the times you chose and did things to get closer to Him.


Salvation Process stated again with theological Terms Added


This is my “College try”, in haste, to give another way of picturing how the Banezian View works. It may seem too simplistic or different from what you might have shown in the salvation process. I am then adding terms below. There are many more terms than the ones I inserted in the salvation process below. If I put them all in there it would get too confusing. It already is. I have trouble keeping it all straight too. These terms help to safeguard against heresies and disagreements. I put them in there so that if you see some of these terms, in any future studies on this view, they will help you to know where they fit in the whole picture. Some of the terms could really be put in more than one place. I know they won’t help you much now. The analogy is probably a better way to see this view. You will see the analogy further below. I’m trying to give you a couple of ways of picturing the Banezian View.


Here it is:


God is always in action and always was in action. He always existed (Pure Act or Moving). God keeps people in existence (Providence). God is out always helping and doing things for all people [Love = Predilection - Predestination which is BOTH the decree (Intention) and the Power (Potency) to help ALL people - Predestination to Grace (Sufficient Grace) but not necessarily to Glory - Matt 23:37, Prov 1:24, Acts 7:51, 2 Cor 3:5 (verses from LaGrange); Trent, Session 6, Canon 17, Denz #827, DS 1567]. God decides (Free Will - Decree -Intention), in one particular case (Premotion - starting here, the whole process is Premotion = Predetermining = includes Operating and Cooperating Grace - Simply put, it is a “Divine Help”), to come give you something special, a gift (Operative Grace = Power or ability, Active Motion, Phil 2:13, Apoc 3:20, 1 Cor 12:6) because He loves you (Predilection) and wants you to be closer to Him. The gift is from Him but separate from Him (Uncreated Cause- ex: this avoids the Heresy of Occasionalism). God is not literally giving Himself to you but giving you a gift (Bestowal) from him and you need this gift to be happy now and forever (the gift implies we are dependent on God - relation of dependence). God gives you this gift usually through other people (Prevenient Grace = preaching and teaching). This gift opens your mind and heart to Him (Intrinsic - Illuminates your Intellect and Elevates and strengthens your Will). He loves you so much that he is even willing to let you go if that is what you want. [with this gift (Actual Grace) you have a Supernatural Free Will [God “Actualizes” your Free Will so you can determine yourself (dominating Indifference) - God Predetermines; It’s passive, in the sense that it doesn’t force us to do anything, but it’s active (Active Motion) in the sense that it “Inclines” us strongly and pleasantly to the target (salutary act) - you still have the ability to say no - you can resist]. He won’t make you love Him back (When you do love Him back you are using what He gave you to love Him back - (Passive Motion - Supernatural Free Will - Cooperative Grace, Ezek 36:27, 1 Cor 15:10, Apoc 3:20 & see last post) That means you have to do something with this gift. You have to act on it [Vital Act - this means the act really comes from within you. This is why you can get credit (merit) for what you do.] With this gift, you are able to see things He wants you to do. He knows there are other things you could do (De Dicto Necessity) but He lets you choose either the thing He wants you to do or do the other things**(Contingencies). One of the things you could do is to sin and move away from God (God Permits this - Contingency). If you do, God is just in punishing you (Reprobation). God promises that you will never be applying the gift by yourself (Indifferent Premotion) and, when you consent and do what He wants you to do (The effect is Efficacious grace = Synergism = Cooperating) [Physical Premotion - we say “Physical” because the power to consent and to do the act is from within. It does not come from some outside (moral) attraction, ex: Molinism]. He Will reward (merit) you with more gifts and make you more holy. God will fill you up (Sanctification - Growing in Grace - infused, inhering and not transient - Merit more Sanctifying Grace, Trent, Canon 32, Denz #803,809,842). The bigger the gift gets the closer you are to God. As you get closer, the more you want to get even closer. The desire to want to get closer comes from that bigger gift (Glory comes from God). You can see God better and that makes you want to get closer (Illumination and Inspiration). The closer you get to God the less fear you have of death because you have that confidence that death cannot separate you from Him (Confident Assurance - 1 John 5:13-14; Rom 8:1; Rom 8:38-39). When you are in heaven, God rewards (Merit - increase in Glory in heaven Matt 16:27) you for all the times you chose and did things (received the Sacraments. - Source of Sanctifying Grace and also Good Works - Salutary Acts done in God’s Sanctifying Grace increases Sanctifying Grace) to get closer to Him (Everlasting Life -Glory - must die in Sanctifying Grace - Persevere).

 

[LaGrange]

** About right here, I should say this:

God gives us the physical and mental ability to choose and to do ALL acts, whether they are with our natural free Will or our supernatural free Will. Every act is done through a Premotion (Providence). So, if the Premotion is done with our natural free Will, it comes under Providence. If the Premotion is done with our supernatural free Will, it comes under Grace. This means that when we sin, God causes it in the sense that He is the one keeping us alive and using our free Will to do the act and physically making it possible to do the act (Providence) (First Cause) and even applying the free Will to the act. God is not responsible for the immorality of the act. This is caused by the person who made that choice (Secondary Cause). They are responsible because God gives them Sufficient Grace (1Cor 10:13, 2 Cor 12:9, Is 5:4, 1 Tim 4:10, Mark 13:13, 2 Pet 2:1, Heb 12:25) to really have a choice and not have to sin (Supernatural Free Will) and they still made the choice to sin and do the sin.




(2) Analogy - The Roman Archer


“The arrow will not always find the mark intended.” —Horace

“If you would hit the mark at long range, you must aim a little above it: Every arrow that flies feels the pull of the earth.” Longfellow


They say a picture paints a thousand words and I hope it paints more than that. I tried to find a way to explain a very difficult subject in the fewest words possible. It is easier to look at a picture and describe its details than to look at minute and complicated details and not be able to see the picture first. Aquinas used analogies like everyone else and one he used often was the one of an Archer. He used others as well such as the analogy of Fire and Heat. Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange often used the analogy of the Artist. To my knowledge, Aquinas never used the analogy of the Archer to describe the whole process of how God works through the soul, outlining every step or describing each part, but he did use parts of it many times in different places. I’m going to try showing it as a whole as I define what a Motion is in my outline (Premotion 1). I realize no analogy is perfect but it will help you to remember how it works better. The reason an analogy isn’t perfect is because we are dealing with the supernatural. It is a mystery. We cannot know God in His essence because, to do so, we would have to be God. We cannot enter into the soul and see what God is actually doing in there so we have to try and describe it based on Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, Philosophy, Formal Logic, Analogies and the Latin and Greek Languages. We use our Reason. My “Causes”, taken from Aristotle’s “Causes”, which describe how we know things, may not be correct but what I say under each one is right or what I think is right. I really don’t know formal logic so I used Norman Geisler’s Book, “Come Let Us Reason”, in helping to do my posts. Aristotle used “4 Causes” and Geisler uses 6 Causes.


Before I get started, here are some Quotes from Aquinas on the Archer


(1) Archer (God) - Efficient Cause (God Predetermines)

Archer has Reason - for an arrow, through the motion of the archer, goes straight towards the target, as though it were endowed with reason to direct its course. (STh., I-II q.13 a.2)

Predestination - Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark - Aquinas used the analogy to define Predestination (STh., I q.23 a.1)

Archer has Reason - an arrow tends to a determinate end through being moved by the archer, who directs his action to the end. Therefore, those things that are possessed of reason, move themselves to an end; because they have dominion over their actions, through their free-will which is the faculty of will and reason. (STh., I-II q.1 a.2)

Movement is predetermined for the arrow by the archer (STh., I q.19 a.4)

God is the Archer (STh., I q.2 a.3)

Archer has Knowledge - in this particular place, Aquinas is talking about nature apart from man (SCG 3.64)

Archer Predetermines - It is Predetermining, according to a causal Predetermination distinct from the formal Predetermination of the act that follows it. This means that it moves our Will by an intrinsic and infallible efficacy to determine itself to perform this determinate good act rather than a certain other. (p281)

Archer Predetermines - Salutary acts are predetermined by God through God’s love for us. This is the Principle of Predilection. (p305-6) (STh., I q.20 a.3)


(2) Bow (Power - Grace) - Instrumental Cause

(2) Arrow (Man) - Instrumental Cause (man determines within God Predetermining)

Free Will - archer will not shoot the arrow straight unless he first sees the target - here Aquinas is talking about following Jesus using man’s Free Will to do it (STh., III q.45 a.1)

Inclination - Because as the arrow receives its direction to a fixed end through the aim of the archer, so too natural bodies receive an inclination to their natural ends from their natural movers, whence they derive their forms, powers and movements. (SCG 3.24)


(3) Aim (Intention-plan-inclination) - Exemplar Cause

Virtue is unequal in men - some men get closer to the target than another (STh., I-II q.66 a.1)

And consequently, right inclination of the will is required antecedently for happiness, just as the arrow must take a right course in order to strike the target. (STh., I-II q.4 a.4)


(4) Arrow - Movement (Change in Soul - from Will to Free Will) - Material Cause


(5) Arrow (Free Will) - Formal Cause (Power or Grace from the bow is subsumed in the arrow)

The arrow does not know the end (STh., I q.103 a.1)

Premotion means God (Archer) always goes first - a Premotion is NOT a Simultaneous Concurrence (ex: Molinism)

Inclination - Inclination of the arrow is an impulse. This means God intends and directs the arrow but the arrow gets to the target in its own way - to order all things sweetly. (STh., I q.103 a.8)

Wherever there is intellect there is free Will (STh., I q.59 a.3)


(6) Target (salutary act - Object - ex: Reading the Bible)- Final Cause


“Sin” In Scripture: “Missing the Mark” = Sin = L Peccatis = fault, error, sin; Gr Harmartia = Strong’s #266 (also NA) = Sin (“Missing the Mark” sounds like the analogy where the arrow misses the target)



Archer - Analogy to help Visualize


The Archer thinks about what he is going to do before he does it. He thinks about what the end result will be that he wants and how he is going to do it. That is, he chooses the targets he wants to hit and makes the preparations needed to accomplish it. He then decides on a particular target. He then picks up the bow and picks up the arrow and puts the two together. He aims the arrow at the target with the bow and arrow together. The Archer’s fingers are holding the bow and arrow together preventing and controlling the arrow from moving toward the target. The Archer releases the arrow from his fingers and the arrow moves toward the target. The arrow may hit the target or it may miss the target. It could miss the target by a small margin, a larger margin or miss it altogether. The arrow will always hit a target but it may be an undesirable target. If the arrow misses the target the archer may try to straighten or repair the arrow so that it will be able to hit the target. If that doesn’t work, the archer may set it aside for awhile. After trying to hit the target again, if that doesn’t work, eventually the archer will not use it. Through time, it will deteriorate and be thrown away. It will be permanently separated from the archer.


Premotion - Here are the 6 Causes:


Archer (God) - Efficient Cause (God Predetermines)

Bow (Power – Grace) - Instrumental Cause

Arrow (Man) - Efficient Cause and Instrumental Cause [man determines himself within God’s Predetermination (both Efficient Causes)]

Aim (Intention-plan-inclination) - Exemplar Cause

Arrow (Movement - Change in Soul – Natural Will to Free Will) - Material Cause

Arrow (Free Will) - (Power or Grace from the bow and the inclination of the aim is subsumed in the arrow)- Formal Cause

Target (salutary act = Object = ex: Reading the Bible) - Final Cause

 

[LaGrange]

Breaking this down:

With Premotion, ALL OF THIS IS INTERNAL


(1) Archer (God) - Efficient Cause (God Predetermines)

Foreknowledge - The Archer thinks about what he is going to do before he does it.

Foreknowledge - He thinks of what the end result will be that he wants and…

God’s Free Will - …how he is going to do it. That is, he chooses the targets he wants to hit….

Preparatory Graces - … and makes the preparations needed to accomplish it. He then decides on a particular target.

(2) Bow (Power – Grace) - Instrumental Cause

(2) Arrow (Man) - Instrumental Cause (man determines within God Predetermining)

(I could make man the archer in the analogy (Efficient Cause). Kind of like an archer within an archer. Two archers but the same arrow. This may be useful in reminding you that God Predetermines man’s Determination)

Operating Grace - He then picks up the Bow and picks up the arrow…

Operating Grace - … and puts the two together.

Operating & Cooperating Grace - The Archer’s fingers are holding the bow and arrow together preventing and controlling the arrow from moving toward the target. Grace (power from the bow) is transferred in “potentiality” to the arrow (our now Supernatural Free Will)

(3) Aim (Intention-plan-inclination) - Exemplar Cause

Foreknowledge and Preparatory Graces - He aims the Arrow at the target with the Bow and Arrow together.

(4) Arrow (Movement - Change in Soul – Natural Will to Free Will) - Material Cause

(5) Arrow (Free Will) - (Power or Grace from the bow and inclination of the aim is subsumed in the arrow)- Formal Cause

Cooperating Grace - Grace and Free Will -The Archer releases the arrow from his fingers and the arrow moves toward the target.

(6) Target (salutary act = Object = ex: Reading the Bible) - Final Cause

Salvation or Sin - The arrow may hit the target or it may miss the target. It could miss the target by a small margin, a larger margin or miss it altogether. The arrow will hit a target but it may be an undesirable target.

(I know what you are thinking: If God is the archer then why does He miss the target sometimes? He permits it to miss. It is a mystery. Really it is a mystery as to why God even allows us to sin and to go to hell. We would have to be God to know that answer.)



Example of a Salutary Act - Watching a Billy Graham Crusade Rerun on TV


First, let me remind you that you could do many salutary acts in one day. When you thread them all together, over time, they either lead you to Christ (accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior) or help you to persevere in Christ after Justification (help lead you to Glory). A short definition of a salutary act is that it is a human action that is performed under the influence of grace that positively moves a person toward Christ or keeps a person in Christ. As a side issue, we refer to it as a salutary act before Justification but refer to it as a Good Work after Justification (Salutary Act AFTER Justification = Good Work). This is because, with a Good Work, you merit a reward. You merit a reward because you are in God’s Grace (in Christ) and Merits are based on God’s Promises. You merit more grace and become more holy (Sanctification Process) and this also helps to Persevere (Justification Process). To us, it’s really the same process. As I’ve said, you cannot merit Justification or Glory (Heaven). Our Doctrine of Final Perseverance stops earning or meriting salvation dead in its tracks. What merit does is increases out sanctity (STh., I-II q.114 a.8, Prov 4:18 - perfect day = Heaven) which gives us a more confident assurance (1 John 5:14) of salvation and, to those that persevere, gain a greater reward in heaven. Alms are a particular kind of salutary act that helps others in need (STh., II-II q.32 a.1) like feeding the hungry, etc. We refer to those as Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy.


Example of Salutary Acts : You are an atheist and watching TV. You are flipping through the channels and stop on a channel that has a Billy Graham Crusade Rerun on. You hesitate, and then decide to not watch (resist) and move on to something else. Every night the same thing happens and, finally, one night you decide to watch Billy Graham. After that, you decide to watch Billy Graham on TV every week. You then, one day, decide to go to the store and buy a Bible. The next time Billy Graham is on TV, you follow his teaching in your Bible. You do this a few times and then decide, one day, to go down to the church. You decide you like going to church so you begin going to church every Sunday. Finally, one day, while at church, you make the big decision to walk the aisle and accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.


Each one of these steps independently is a salutary act:

Decide to watch Billy Graham the first time

Decide to watch Billy Graham every week

Decide to buy a Bible

Decide to follow Billy Graham’s Teaching in the Bible

Decide to go to church the first time

Decide to go to church every week

Decide to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior


(The only act above that is not a salutary act is the one where the atheist “Resists”)


(By “Decide” I mean BOTH to choose and to actually do it)


Each one of these steps, independently, are described by the Analogy of the Roman Archer. What we’re doing is trying to explain how God causes them. How does God work through our soul to produce a salutary act? What caused the atheist, in the example above, to go from deciding not to watch Billy Graham on TV to deciding to watch Billy Graham for the first time? If you notice, from the salutary acts in the example above, there is something God is doing and something we are doing. God is doing something first and then we are doing something second. God’s “Preventing Grace” or “Prevenient Grace” is externally (Extrinsic) coming to the atheist from Billy Graham on TV. The extrinsic part alone does not cause the atheist to move toward Christ. If the atheist doesn’t have a hearing impediment or there isn’t some other distraction, this Prevenient Grace also enters his soul. Right then he still could resist it which he does initially in my example. This Gospel Message has to begin to move “Inside” (Intrinsic) the atheist, which it eventually does in my example. The real change is inside (Intrinsic) the person. As it does, the atheist’s Intellect is illuminated and the Will becomes “Free” (Supernatural Free Will) and strengthened. It becomes free to “Decide” or “Choose” (or consent) and then to “Act”. The atheist can now see the target and move toward t

 

[LaGrange]

Let’s take a salutary act and apply the Archer Analogy to it:


Salutary Act: Atheist’s Decision to follow Billy Graham’s Teaching in the Bible


(1) Archer (God) - Efficient Cause (God Predetermines)

Foreknowledge - The Archer thinks about what he is going to do before he does it.

Foreknowledge - He thinks of what the end result will be that he wants and…

Salutary Act: God knows what He is going to do concerning the atheist. He knows that He wants the atheist to come closer to Him. God loves him.

God’s Free Will - …how he is going to do it. That is, he chooses the targets he wants to hit….

Salutary Act: God also knows and chooses to use the Billy Graham TV Show and the Bible to accomplish it.


(2) Bow (Power – Grace) - Instrumental Cause

(2) Arrow (Man) - Instrumental Cause (man determines within God Predetermining)

Preparatory Graces - … and makes the preparations needed to accomplish it. He then decides on a particular target.

Salutary Act: God, through His Prevenient Grace, brings the atheist in view of Billy Graham on TV.

Operating Grace - He then picks up the Bow and picks up the arrow…

Operating and Cooperating Grace - … and puts the two together.

Salutary Act: The extrinsic graces of the atheist seeing Billy Graham on TV is coupled with the intrinsic graces knocking on the door of his soul.

Operating and Cooperating Grace - The Archer’s fingers are holding the bow and arrow together preventing and controlling the arrow from moving toward the target.

Salutary Act: God’s Operating Grace is entering or permeating the atheist’s soul and, at the moment the atheist opens the door in Cooperation with God’s Operating Grace, the grace enters. I may be overdoing it here or trying too hard but I see this penetration as similar to Christ entering the Upper Room through the closed door. It is a mystery (John 20:26, Apoc 3:20).


(3) Aim (Intention-plan-inclination) - Exemplar Cause

Foreknowledge and Preparatory Graces - He aims the Arrow at the target with the Bow and Arrow together.

Salutary Act: The act or target comes in view or is proposed


(4) Arrow (Movement - Change in Soul – Natural Will to Free Will) - Material Cause

(5) Arrow (Free Will) - (Power or Grace from the bow and inclination of the aim is subsumed in the arrow)- Formal Cause

Grace and Free Will -The Archer releases the arrow from his fingers and the arrow moves toward the target.

Salutary Act: Causes 4 and 5 are merged. Operating Grace elevates the atheist’s Intellect and inspires and strengthens the Will. Then, the atheist is Free to choose whether to do the act or not. At this point he consents or chooses to act and moves to do the act ( the choice and act is accomplished with Cooperating Grace).


(6)Target (salutary act = Object = ex: Reading the Bible) - Final Cause

Salvation or Sin - The arrow may hit the target or it may miss the target. It could miss the target by a small margin, a larger margin or miss it altogether. The arrow will hit a target but it may be an undesirable target.

Salutary Act: The atheist reads the Bible. Notice: Supernatural Free Will always exists in the sense that there s always a choice. Many times we begin to do a salutary act and don’t due to distractions or impediments even after deciding to do one. There are always other possibilities.


The Archer Analogy in a Sound Bite


Just picture this: The Archer is God and He starts everything. You are the arrow. Both have something to do with hitting the target (salutary act). Both are moving toward the target but one moved the other. God is simply adding a target for you to hit and not taking away any other possible targets you had before. When you hit the target God wanted you to hit, He rewards you because you could have chosen to hit one of the other possible targets.


Another analogy of a Steam Engine


Heat: God

Water: You

Steam: Both accomplishing the act


It takes two things to produce steam: Heat and Water. You need both. Heat separated from Water doesn’t produce steam (Potency - Operative). Heat in contact with Water produces steam (Act- Cooperative). Steam provides the energy but still requires both working together. The steam permeates the engine providing the energy. The energy comes from the Heat (First) and the water (Secondarily).

 

[LaGrange]

(4) Premotion 1 (with Analogy)


Premotion - Banez - Definition


“The active determination of the Will depends on the passive motion, which is from the free choice of God intimately operating and moving and reducing the capacity of free choice to act according to the mode of its nature, by illuminating the intellect that it would better apprehend the means and inspiring the Will that it would efficaciously choose that which is well pleasing to God.” (Footnote: Aquinas, STh., I q.105 a.5; STh., I-II q.109 a.1)

(Dr Robert Mutava, doctoral dissertation: Divine Causality and Human Free Choice, p37)


Aquinas (from the quotes mentioned in the footnote above):


Again it is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself (STh., I q.105 a.5 , Is 26:12)


And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God… (STh., I-II q.109 a.1)


Garrigou-LaGrange’s Book starts here


P241- 242


Predetermining Physical Premotion is:

1. A Motion and not an out of nothing creation

2. Physical and not moral

3. Regarding our freedom not necessitating but predetermining in the sense that it guarantees the intrinsic infallibility of the divine decrees and moves our Will to determine itself to a certain determinate good act ( a bad act does not come from God).

4. Predetermination is prior to motion - your free act remains free after its determination.


Think: Potency (Operate) to Act (Cooperate)


Let’s break this down a little more:


1. A Motion is not an out of nothing creation

My Comment: This means a Motion is distinct from God. It’s kind of like a separate entity or agent cause.

Analogy: The archer (God) and what he does (Motion) are two different things.


2. Physical and not moral

My Comment: It is something that works through the soul and not some outward control - it is intrinsic and not extrinsic

Analogy: The power and aim of the archer works through the arrow and not by adjusting an extrinsic target.


3. Regarding our freedom - not necessitating but predetermining in the sense that it guarantees the intrinsic infallibility of the divine decrees and moves our Will to determine itself to a certain determinate good act ( a bad act does not come from God).

My Comment: God predetermines all of our salutary acts which means He moves our Will to determine itself.

Analogy: The archer starts the whole process by picking up the bow and arrow to hit the target (Predetermining). The bow and arrow don’t hit the target by themselves. Once the archer shoots the arrow the quality of the arrow (determining) has much to do with hitting the target.


4. Predetermination (both formal and causal) is prior to motion - our free act remains free after its determination.

My Comment: God moves us to the point that we are free to determine ourselves.

Analogy: The archer decides when and where to practice his archery (Causal). Once at the time and location, the archer picks up the bow and arrow to practice (Formal). All of this is “prior” to releasing the arrow (arrow in motion - determining ourselves).


P243


What does not constitute Physical Premotion


(1) God alone does not act in all things because, if this were true, secondary causes would not be causes. This would be what is called Occasionalism. God created and maintains secondary causes in being and applies them to act (ST Q.105 A.5).

My Comment: God is not doing the salutary act alone. [Sounds a little like Calvin even though it came later - Occasionalism - Descartes (1596-1650) and Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), a priest, promoted this view. It is a form of Dualism.]

Analogy: The archer and the bow (First Cause) are distinct from the arrow (Secondary Cause). Both Causes are needed to hit the target.


(2) The Divine Motion gives rise to secondary causes, therefore, it cannot be necessitating, in the sense that it would suppress all contingency and liberty. Secondary causes act as befitting their nature, contingently and freely, as in the case of man who chooses.

My Comment: The divine motion (First Cause) effects the Will (Secondary Cause)

Analogy: The arrow already has its own nature (has a natural Free Will). It is a separate entity from the archer so it already has a certain independence. The archer cannot force the arrow to hit the target.



P244

(2) Continued


Aquinas: “The Divine Will is perfectly Efficacious. Not only are things done which God wills to be done but also the way that He wills. God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe” (STh I Q.19 A.8)

The Divine Motion does not suppress freedom but actualizes it.

My Comment: God “actualizes” (causes the environment in the soul - makes the Will Free) our Free Will.

Analogy: God (actually) uses the arrow (this combines grace with nature).

The Divine Motion gives the free act the actual dominating indifference after it is already determined (STh I Q.83 A.1 ; STh I-II Q.10 A.4)

My Comment: This means that the First Cause makes the secondary Cause truly free and to move on its own, so to speak

Analogy: The nature of the arrow is not altered (Natural Free Will). Power from the archer and bow are added (Grace) to the arrow (both combined in the arrow becomes Supernatural Free Will).


(3) A Premotion applies the secondary cause to act and is not a simultaneous concurrence. A simultaneous concurrence would be like two men pulling a boat where one is not exerting influence on the other. They are working side by side. One is not being premoved by the other.

My Comment: A Premotion is where the First Cause moves the Secondary Cause. A Simultaneous Concurrence is where both Causes are equal so that one doesn’t start or move the other.

Analogy: The archer, holding his bow, doesn’t move to pick up the arrow and, at the same time, the arrow is moving to pick up the archer holding his bow (This would describe a simultaneous Concurrence).


P248


(4) A Premotion is NOT an indifferent motion where God would determine us only to an indeliberate act and free will would then determine itself to perform an act. (p248)

Predetermining Physical Premotion is used to exclude the theories of simultaneous concurrence and indifferent premotion.

My Comment: An Indifferent Premotion means that God gives us the power to do a salutary act but we, separately, decide to make the choice and do the act on our own. An Indifferent Motion does not apply the Will to the act.

Analogy: The archer picks up the bow and arrow, stretches the bow with the arrow in it, and then does not aim it or let it go. This would mean the power is useless to get the arrow to the target (Indifferent Premotion). The archer must apply the arrow to the target by aiming the arrow and releasing the arrow from the bow (Premotion). The archer has to put the arrow in motion or it won't Ever be in motion.

 

[LaGrange]

P250


(5) God’s created motion is received in the Secondary Cause

God’s action in us is immanent (inside us) and

transitive (being or relating from one state to another)

(STh I q.25 a.1; SCG 2.23 p.4)(p252)

There is no real relation on God’s part toward us

(My comment: I think this means God isn’t on the same level with us so what He passes to us isn’t infinite)

There is only a relation of dependence on God (ST I q.13 a.12)

The creative action, willed in time, produces an effect in time (SCG 2.35)

The transitive action is an accident that proceeds from the agent and terminates in the patient


My Comment: When Aquinas says “there is no real relation on God’s part toward us” and “God’s action is immanent and transitive” it means that we are not equal to God, considering what He gives to us (Power) and what we receive. It is a relation of dependence. Here’s a little more explanation on this:

“In a serious sense, of course, 1a,25 also draws on earlier discussions in the Prima Pars. We shall not, therefore, be surprised to find Aquinas saying in it that there is power in God since God brings things about as an agent cause. But we should note that in 1a,25,1 Aquinas distinguishes between two kinds of power: active power as in “I can cook lasagna” and passive power as in “I can be burned.” In 1a,25,1, his main point is that active power can be ascribed to God and that passive power cannot. He argues that God has active power as being the source of the esse (existence) of all that is not divine, and he denies that God has passive power since he thinks that God, considered as the source of the esse of things, cannot be acted on or modified by any agent cause distinct from God.” (Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae A Guide and Commentary by BRIAN DAVIES)


Analogy: The power (grace) and skill (Foreknowledge) of the archer is transferred to the bow and then to the arrow (transitive) and they are inside (immanent) the arrow. The power and aim of the archer is “subsumed” into the arrow (arrow = Intellect and Will).


The greater number of obections against Divine Premotion are due to the fact that the Divine Action is conceived as being univocal (one meaning) with created action, which latter does not go so far as to cause our acts to be performed freely.

My Comment: This means that Premotion is thought to only be God’s Created Action apart from causing our free acts. I think this means God would do it all. This means that you are eliminating the Secondary Cause (describes Luther and Calvin)

Analogy: The archer hits the target using a perfect arrow with perfect conditions. The arrow is not capable of missing the target. This is not natural or normal.


Physical Premotion - Definition


P256


(1) Motion

It is a motion passively received in the secondary cause that induces it to act

This motion is Actual Grace

This motion is distinct from God’s uncreated action upon which it depends

This motion is distinct from the salutary act to which it is directed (STh I-II q.110 a.2)

My Comment: God’s action is passed into a Motion


Analogy: see below


(1) Motion

It is a motion passively received in the secondary cause that induces it to act


My Comment: God’s Motion creates the Free Will in the soul

Analogy: The power in the archer passes into the bow (Motion = Grace) and then received into the arrow (Intellect and Will)


This motion is Actual Grace


My Comment: Actual Grace is the term used to describe grace entering the soul that gives us the power to act which includes the applying of this power to the act (salutary act).

Analogy: The archer puts the arrow in motion (Predetermines = “Actualizes” the arrow =Frees the Will) and then the arrow is determining (moving = choosing and acting) itself yet still with the archer’s (God’s) power and guidance (Inclination).


This motion is distinct from God’s uncreated action upon which it depends


My Comment: A Motion is a distinct power from God’s general power.

Analogy: This is a “particular” or “distinct” movement by the archer using this arrow at this particular time to shoot at a particular target (to do a particular salutary act. It is not the general movement or action of the archer (Causal Power) The archer shoots many other arrows and does many other things. (Uncreated actions)


This motion is distinct from the salutary act to which it is directed (STh., I-II q.110 a.2;

STh., I-II q.111 a.2) This motion is prior to the salutary act and brings it about. This motion is distinct from the created cause. (John of St. Thomas)


My Comment: The Motion (Formal Power), distinct from the created cause (Causal Power), is also distinct from the salutary act. The Motion “Precedes” the salutary act because it causes or brings about the salutary act. Without the Motion preceding the salutary act, the act would not be desirable because the target wouldn’t be desirable or maybe not even exist!

Analogy: The power and direction of the archer is in the archer (Causal Power) and precedes any motion (Formal Power). The Motion (Formal Power) precedes the moving of the arrow toward the target (target = Choice). The moving of the arrow to the target is the salutary act.


Motion is NOT creation

Our acts are vital acts and are not created in us out of nothing

Grace is NOT created out of nothing but is drawn from the obediential potentiality of the soul, upon which it depends as an accident (STh I-II q.113 a.9)


My Comment: This all means:

Grace is an accident (kind of like a substance or form) put in us (bestowed) separate from God Himself (I see this “substance” as the way Faith is described in Heb 11:1)

[Substance - Being is Divided between that which exists of itself (substance) and that which has its existence in another (accidents)(Divine Causality and Human Free Choice, Mutava, P269].

Grace is in the soul and is waiting to be used (potentiality - Power)

Grace is drawn out of the soul through obedience (act - choice)

Vital Acts means, when we act, it is really us that is acting and not God acting alone through us.

Analogy: The archer and the whole process of shooting the arrow is distinct from the archer himself.

More explanation below.


P257-258


The Divine Motion is not creation but the Creative Cause

Creative Cause is the only source capable of producing the whole being of a given effect and all its modes, whether the effect be necessary or free (STh I q.19 a.8)


My Comment:

Divine Motion is not equal to Creation

Divine Motion is equal to the Creative Cause

ie Creation is not equal to the Creative Cause

Divine Motion is equal to Providence

This separates God’s Creation in general from a special kind of act or special kind of creation


My Comment: GL’s Propositions:

Active Motion and Active Creation seem the same even though they are not but have similarities

Passive Motion and Passive Creation have similarities

Active Creation is an eternal action

Passive Creation is a real relation of dependence of the creature on God

Active Preservation (Providence) is continued creative action

Passive Preservation (Providence) is the real relation of constant or continued dependence of the creature on God

The Being (body and soul) of the creature is dependent on the Divine Action

The Action of the creature is dependent on the Divine Action that is called “Motion” (Passive Motion)

God does not produce our acts of knowing and willing out of nothing because that would mean they are not vital and free (it would then be necessity)

We do not say God merely sustains these acts which begin at a precise moment, even though before they did not exist

We say that God moves us to perform acts ourselves vitally and freely

 

[LaGrange]

My Comment:

Active Motion and Active Creation are not the same:

Active Creation (or Preservation) is Providence

Active Motion is the Created Cause (First Cause)

Active Motion is a formally immanent and virtually transitive action

Passive Motion is where, though we have only the power to act, is passively moved by God to become actually in act

This means God moves us to perform acts ourselves vitally and freely

This means we truly have Free Will and really choose

This means God does not do the acts alone

God is active in the performance of salutary acts

Here are the steps:

God acts - man receives power to act - man acts

On this power to act - act (potentiality to act)

God’s active motion (which permeates all things: immanent and transitive) - passive motion of God (Power given to man to be able to act) - the act (vital and free act of the Will)

Analogy to fire and water (shows the influence of one created agent over another)

(1) the action of the fire: actual heating of water (God acts)

(2) the effect of this action: the water is heated (man’s Power to act)

(3) the action of the heated water upon surrounding objects (man acts)

What I get from this section is that God “Influences” our Wills to act. All of these definitions (distinctions) are to safeguard against certain heresies such as Occasionalism and others.


I would sum it up this way:

God creates us (Active Creation)

God keeps us in existence (Passive Creation)

God creates a particular potential in us for a particular action (Active Motion) (First Cause)

God applies this potential to the act (Passive Motion) (Secondary Cause) [Passive Motion is the “influence” that permeates the Secondary Cause in moving (applying) the power to the act]


Analogy: The archer (God) is first, separate from the whole process. Think of the archer doing other things before he even decides to go to the archery to shoot a particular arrow. The arrow already exists and is stored somewhere (Passive Creation - Providence). The archer begins to leave home to go to the archery to shoot a particular arrow (Active Motion). The archer picks up the bow and arrow and releases the arrow and he passes his power and skill through the bow and then the arrow to the target (Passive Motion). God is operating all the way through to the target.(Stated before)



P259


We must not confuse the Divine Motion that is passively received in the Secondary Cause with the Divine Active Motion, which is God Himself or with the action produced by the Secondary Cause (this means OUR WILLS produce our acts; not God) (STh I-II q.16 a.1)

Analogy: Again, the power of the archer is not the archer himself.


Reason for denying Premotion: They interpret in an active sense what Thomists takes in a passive sense

Motion definition: a divine motion by which our Will is reduced from the potency of willing to the act of willing (p259).


My Comment: This means that our Will is moved by God to perform a truly free act. The influence inside the free act is grace. Grace “internally” exerts influence on our sensitive faculties and moves us to see objects in a different way that moves the Will to act. The change is all inward not outward. (See bottom of p258 about external objects and light)


P260


(2) “Pre” in Premotion

To move and be moved are at the same time - there is no priority of time

The motion of the mover precedes the movement of the moveable object both intellectually and causally (not timewise - not chronological)(SCG 3:150 paragraph1)

The cause is prior and the decree is prior to the motion

The Divine Motion assures its execution


My Comment: This means the Cause and Decree is prior to the Motion. (Predestination)


The Motion is where the Cause and Decree enters time (this doesn’t change the fact that there is no priority of time between the Mover and the Moved)

The Premotion and the instantaneous free act (receiving of Power) do not depend on what precedes them in time

They depend on what precedes them in the ever-unchangeable present of eternity (measure of Divine Decrees)


My Comment: This, I think, safeguards one from making God’s Premotions dependent on God’s Foreknowledge of what man does previously (ex: merits or demerits) (This is what Molinism does in error)


The divine efficacious motion extends to the free mode of our acts

Under the divine efficacious motion our Will retains the power not to perform the act or the contrary act

Under the divine efficacious motion it is impossible for the Will to omit the performance of the act (STh I-II q.10 a.4)

The potential indifference of the act has been replaced by the actual indifference that had been determined

The act does not cease to be free because it is determined


My Comment: In theory, under an efficacious motion, you still have free Will and do not have to do the salutary act (God’s determined “Actual” Indifference” in the Will making it free). Remember, this is talking specifically about an “Efficacious” motion


Premotion indicates a priority not of time but a priority of reason or causality

Without a priority of Reason and Causality there would be no motion but simultaneous concurrence

(Simultaneous Concurrence - Analogy of two men drawing a boat with the first exerting no influence over the second, but each acting independently on the boat - Molinism)

Analogy: The archer and the arrow are not both flying toward the target. One goes before the other.


P263


(3) Physical

Physical doesn’t mean it is not spiritual

The motion is said to be a Physical Motion to distinguish it from a Moral Motion

A Moral Motion moves the Will by way of an objective attraction (proposing a good to it)

Aquinas distinguishes these two motions (STh I-II q.10 a.2)


God moves every secondary cause (STh I-II q.10 a.5):

(1) as final end...which participitates in a likeness to the supreme good (Moral)

(2) as first agent from whom every subordinated agent receives its power to act (Physical)

Aquinas said in both ways it belongs to God to move the Will but especially in the second way by an anterior inclination of the Will (STh I-II q.10 a.4)


These two kinds of motion, referencing the Intellect and Will, are moved BOTH by the object proposed and as to the exercise of their act by God

God moves our Will by interiorly inclining it and not forcing it

God moves our Will by its inclination to a universal good

God actualizes this inclination and causes it to confine itself with a dominating indifference to a certain particular good


My Comment: What this all means is that God moves us “internally” through a motion and not by an outward attraction only. It all must be internal.


Our Will being Moved by another does not prevent its being moved from within itself (STh I q.105 a.4) Aquinas was saying that our acts would not be free or meritorious if God moved us but we weren’t moved from within

The Will, in willing the end, moves itself to Will the means (STh I-II q.9 a.3)


My Comment: God moves us all the way through the act yet we really do move ourselves (Supernatural Free Will) This Motion is defined as having in it an indifference to doing the act but attracting it to the good (what makes us happy) and then moving the Will to do it when the choice is made.


Operating Grace (STh., I-II q.3 a.2) This is how God moves us to the act of willing something determinate, which is good (STh., I-II q.9 a.6).

This is true when:

(1) before we deliberate; to will happiness in general

(2) after we deliberate: to Will a certain particular good about which we deliberated

(3) above and independent of our deliberation: by the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is an Operating Grace; of such a nature are the acts which are performed by means of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost


P267


(4) Predetermining yet Non-Necessitating


Predetermining yet working with our nature, that is, through our Free Will (Predetermined seems like the opposite of Free Will but it isn’t)

 

[LaGrange]

Causal and NOT a Formal Predetermination


This is not a Formal Predetermination but a Causal Predetermination (a Formal Predetermination by God would be one of Force whereas a Causal Predetermination inclines us strongly and suavely (L. Pleasantly) to formally determine ourselves)


Formal Determination is that of the voluntary act already determined (by God), and which follows the other according to a posteriority not of time but of causality (this means we determine ourselves after God Predetermines us Causally


Molinists argue:

If God, by His motion, determines the Will to Will this rather than that, then it can no more determine itself.


(Answered above)


P268


Premotion and Predetermined mean the same thing

Premotion refers to Omnipotence (Power)

Predetermination refers to the Predetermining Decree of the Divine Will [Divine Will that predetermines a salutary act (ex: Mary’s Fiat – Luke 1:38) shall be accomplished in time, on a certain day, at a certain hour, and that it shall be accomplished freely]

Omnipotence interiorly moves the human Will without, in the least, forcing it, so as to assure the execution of the decree (Omni = All ; Potent = Power)

AWESOME!!!


My Comment: Predetermined has to do with the “outside” (Decree) and Omnipotence has to do with the “inside” (Power). God puts in us the grace that indifferently makes it possible to do a salutary act. It makes it possible and guarantees the decree will be executed without forcing it.


St. Augustine wrote on this Predetermination.


St. Augustine: For it is certain that we keep the commandments if we will; but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask of Him for such a force of will as suffices to make (Causes) us act by the willing. It is certain that it is we that will when we will, but it is He who makes us will what is good, of whom it is said (as he has just now expressed it), “The will is prepared by the Lord.” (Prov 8:35) Of the same Lord it is said, “The steps of a man are ordered by the Lord, and his way doth He will.”(Ps 37:23) Of the same Lord again it is said, “It is God who worketh in you, even to will!” (Phil 2:13) It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes (Commandments), and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” (Ezekiel 36:27) When he says, “I will make you … to do them”, what else does He say in fact than, “I will take away from you your heart of stone,” (Ezekiel 11:19; Ezek 36:26) from which used to arise your inability to act, “and I will give you a heart of flesh,” (Ezek 36:26) in order that you may act?” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 16.32) ....He who prepares the will, and perfects by His co-operation what He initiates by His operation? Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when Forasmuch as in beginning He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will.5 On which account the apostle says, “I am confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 1:6) He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. (St. Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 17.33).


My Version of Augustine’s Propositions:

The Will is prepared by the Lord

God must Cause us to act by Willing (Preparation - applying efficacious powers to our Will )

We do the Willing (this is certain)

God makes (Causes) us to Will what is good (Preparation - same as above)

God Makes us observe the Commandments and Judgements which means taking away our inability to act ( Makes = Enable; not Force)

God Operates without us so that we may will

God Cooperates with us when we will so that we may act


Summation (bottom of p268):

The Divine Motion received in the Secondary Cause is Predetermining

Predetermination gives the infallible assurance of the execution of the decree

Predetermination is causal and not formal

Decree is BOTH Formal and Causal

Determination of our voluntary act is Formal and not Causal (our determination)

Dominating Indifference means:

Free Act already determined remains free

Immutable act of divine liberty remains free in spite of its immutability (this is true in punishing for sin or rewarding for good)

(This above summary assumes the Grace is efficacious and, ie, the salutary act will be done)


My Comment: The Motion precedes our motion only causally. God’s Motion is instantaneous with our motion. God’s Motion is an agent (instrument) which creates a kind of a spiritual environment in the soul. This environment will guarantee God’s Command or Decree (intention) will be done but the guarantee is BOTH the power AND the Operations!!! (Aquinas, SCG 3.89) With this power and operations, we receive the intention (Intellect) and the Power (Will) and, together with Our Formal Determination (Will) and God’s Causal Determination, perform the salutary act. God’s Causality extends not only to the Will, but also to its Act (Prov 21:1; Is 26:12).


Prov 21:1 As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever he will, he shall turn (Incline) it.

Is 26:12 Lord, thou wilt give us peace: for thou hast wrought all our works for us.

Phil 2:13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.


My Comment: In Prov 21:1, to “Turn” means to “Incline” which leaves room for man to actually make the choice and to act. These verses are saying that, not only does God give us the Power to do the works but, He does the work in us too. So, not only are we doing the work but God is doing the work too. Also, Is 26:12 says “Wrought ALL” our works in us. The key word is “All”. This means the Divine Causality extends to the act (P269).


Non-Necessitating (p269)


St. John Damascene, on the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.30 (676-754ad):

“We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things.”


Damascene’s Proposition:


God Foreknows but does not predetermine the things which are in our power


Providence regards those things that are not in our power, and not those that are: and the saying of Damascene, who followed him, in the Second Book,2 that God knows but does not predetermine the things which are in our power, are to be understood as meaning that the things which are in our power are not subject to the divine predetermination in such a way as to be necessitated thereby.(Aquinas, SCG, 3.90)


Garrigou-LaGrange loosely quoted: This is proof that St. Thomas believed in Non-Necessitating Predetermination. This means that our free acts are subject to the determination of providence, but not as though imposing necessity on them. What is not included is only evil, since it comes from the deficient cause ( Aquinas, Dei Veritate, q.5 a.5).


My Comment: This means God Predetermines us to the point of making the choice but we still have Free Will so we could still choose to sin. In that way, God is not Predetermining (Inclining) us to sin so, it is said to be “Non-Necessitating”.


“Again. Not only does God give things their powers, but also nothing can act by its own power, unless it act by His power, as we proved above.3 Therefore man cannot use the will-power given to him, except forasmuch as he acts by God’s power. Now the thing by whose power the agent acts, is the cause not only of the power but also of the act. This is apparent in the craftsman, by whose power the instrument acts, even though it may not have received its form from the craftsman in question, and is merely applied by him to action. Therefore God is the cause not only of our will but also of our willing”(Aquinas, SCG 3.89).


My Comment: This means that God also Causes the Act. If a man sins, God causes the physical act but not the moral aspect of it.

 

[LaGrange]

(5) Premotion 2


Non-Necessitating (continued)

P270


Acts of Choice are under the immediate governance of God. God alone is the cause of our willing and choosing (Aquinas, SCG, 3.91).


The operation of an angel persuades but the operation of God gives completion to man’s choice. Man does not always choose what his guardian angel intends, nor that which the heavenly body inclines him; whereas he always chooses in accord with God’s operation in his Will. Hence the guardianship of the angels is sometimes frustrated (Jer 51:9)...whereas divine Providence never fails. (Aquinas, SCG, 3.92).


Man can be directed to all things by the one divine disposition (that is what happens in the case of the predestined) (Aquinas, SCG, 3.92).


Among the parts of the whole universe the first distinction to be observed is between the contingent and the necessary:....Therefore it belongs to the order of divine providence, not only that such and such an effect be produced, but that it be caused necessarily, and that some other effect be produced contingently:...the divine providence is the per se cause that this particular effect will happen contingently. And this cannot fail....Now, He foresaw that it would happen contingently. It follows then infallibly that it will be, contingently and not of necessity....for they are foreseen by God so as to be freely done by us...Consequently it belongs to His providence sometimes to allow defectible causes to fail, and sometimes to preserve them from failing. (Aquinas, SCG, 3.94)


Therefore God knows both the thoughts and the affections of the mind (Aquinas, SCG, 1.68).


P271


Garrigou-LaGrange: All these quotations from the SCG show that for St. Thomas the divine motion, which directs us to perform salutary acts, is a motion that concerns the exercise of the act or a physical motion which, of itself and infallibly, inclines us, without compulsion, to perform this particular act rather than a certain other, and this because the divine causality extends even to the free mode of our acts; for this latter still pertains to our being. This means that for St. Thomas the divine motion is predetermining although non necessitating.


My Comment: God inclines us to perform a particular act rather than another. The key word seems to be “Inclines”. God predetermines us to do a particular act but does not necessitate it. God does not make us do it. This describes “Non-Necessitating”.


It is in this way that God’s changing of the will without forcing it is to be understood. God can change the will because He works within it just as He works in nature. Now, just as every natural action is from God, so too every action of the will, in so far as it is an action, not only is from the will as its immediate agent but also is from God as its first agent, who influences it more forcefully. Then, just as the will can change its act to something else, as is apparent from the explanation above, so too and much more so can God. (Aquinas, Dei Veritate, q.22 a.8)


“The text is clear. The human Will as secondary cause determines itself to perform a certain free act; therefore much more so can God as the first cause, who operates more vigorously, incline the will infallibly to determine itself to perform this particular act rather than a certain other. Thus He is the cause of St. Paul’s conversion, of Magdalene’s or of the good thief’s.” (LaGrange, Predestination, p271).


My Comment: God as the First Cause Predetermines man who, in turn, determines himself to each free act. God can even more forcefully or vigorously incline the Will because He continues to work in it.


P272


In all these texts we see that for St. Thomas the divine causality extends even to the free mode of our determinations, so that everything real and good in them depends upon God as the First Cause, and upon us as Secondary Cause. In this sense the divine motion is predetermining and not necessitating.


John 2:4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.


Aquinas: By this is meant the hour of His passion, which is determined for Him not of necessity, but according to divine providence. (Commentary on John, #351)


GL: It is evident here a question of a determining and infallible but non necessitating decree of the divine Will.


My Comment: My understanding is that Jesus is both God and man. As God, Jesus predetermined the hour and, as man, Jesus determined Himself by choosing the time. This means the predetermination was non-necessitating. It could also mean God the Father predetermined the time and Jesus chose the hour which makes the predetermination non-necessitating.


John 7:30 They sought therefore to apprehend him: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.


Aquinas: By this is meant His hour was predetermined not from fatal necessity but by the three divine persons. (Commentary on John, #1069)


My Comment: same as above


John 13:1 BEFORE the festival day of the pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.


Aquinas: Neither are we to understand by this that fatal hour, as if subjected to the course and disposition of the stars, but the hour determined by the disposition of divine Providence. (Commentary on John, #1733)


My Comment: same as above


John 17:1 THESE things Jesus spoke: and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said: the hour is come. Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee.


Aquinas: Neither is it the hour of fatal necessity, but of His Father’s ordination and good pleasure. (Commentary on John, #2180)


My Comment: same as above


All these texts evidently point to a predetermining and infallible divine decree that refers to the hour Jesus speaks of as His own, and hence even to the free act which He had infallibly to perform in willing to die for our salvation. These texts also refer to the permissive Decrees as regards the sin of Judas, who before his hour could do no harm to our Lord.


My Comment: Concerning Judas, this being part of God’s Permissive Decree seems to mean, when Fr LaGrange says “Judas....who before could do no harm”, that God controls the time when Judas could choose to sin.


P273


Eternal Predetermining Decree


“determined effects proceed from His own infinite perfection according to the determination of His will and intellect.” (STh., I q.19 a.4)


How does this safeguard our liberty?


“Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that He wills. Now God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe.” (STh., I q.19 a.8)


Obj. 2. Further, every cause that cannot be hindered, produces its effect necessarily....But the will of God cannot be hindered. For the Apostle says (Rom. 9:19): Who resisteth His will? Therefore the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed.


Reply 2: “From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will.” (STh., I q.19 a.8)(also SCG 3.94)


P274


GL: These texts express the intrinsic and fallible efficacy of the decrees and the divine motion, far from destroying the Liberty of our acts, causes it.


My Comment: I think what this all means is that God’s decrees and motions in our soul causes and protects Supernatural Free Will and even inclines it to one particular act rather than another.


Aquinas: God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature. (STh., I q.83 a.1)


My Comment: Natural Free Will - God moves everything that is natural and free (Providence). This means our Natural Free Will is moved by God. When moving our Natural Free Will, God doesn’t prevent our actions from being voluntary (Free Choice) but rather, causes them to be Free. He operates in each thing according to its own nature.

It’s the same with Supernatural Free Will!!!

 

[LaGrange]

My Comment: Thinking out loud

Operative Grace - If we think about our Natural Free Will, it has choices and then acts upon those choices. God Operates in these natural choices by His Providence. This means God created us and therefore is sustaining us which includes our Natural Free Will. God operates in these choices and acts. With Supernatural Free Will, Operative Grace has added inspiration, choices to do good and doing the act itself through the power (potentiality) and the inclination to move to do the good (act).


Proof: God does not move the Will by Necessity


Therefore He does not of necessity move man’s will...Since, therefore, the will is an active principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.

(STh., I-II q.10 a.4)


Aquinas says God works through our nature which includes Free Will:


Reply Obj. 1. The Divine will extends not only to the doing of something by the thing which He moves, but also to its being done in a way which is fitting to the nature of that thing. And therefore it would be more repugnant to the Divine motion, for the will to be moved of necessity, which is not fitting to its nature; than for it to be moved freely, which is becoming to its nature. (STh., I-II q.10 a.4)


P275


Definition of a Free Act


GL: God, by His motion, cannot necessitate the Will to Will a particular good that is presented to it as good under one aspect and is not good under another:


Reply Obj. 2. The intellect is moved, of necessity, by an object, which is such as to be always and necessarily true: but not by that which may be either true or false—viz., by that which is contingent: as we have said of the good.(STh., I-II q.10 a.2)


My Comment: Notice: Aquinas is talking about the Intellect and not the Will. This means that when the object of the Will can be true or false, the Intellect cannot be moved by Necessity. This means the Will cannot be moved by necessity if the object is not universal. An object that isn’t always true defines a Free Act. GL says the act of the Will that concerns a particular good thus proposed by the Intellect under the form of an indifferent judgement, cannot be other than Free.


P276


Socrates when seated can rise, but he is never at the same time both seated and standing


My Comment: This is an Axiom taken from Aquinas (STh., I q.19 a.3)(SCG 1.67.10). See explanation below.


*************************************************

This section was added to help explain Necessity and was not all in Garrigou-LaGrange’s book


Just as it is necessary for Socrates to sit whilst he is seated, though it is optional for him to be seated (de dicto Necessity)

(From LaGrange’s Book, p139)


My Comment: When it says

Socrates sits while he is seated means Sits = seated (necessity)

Optional for Socrates to sit means Sitting = Optional = doesn’t have to sit (de Dicto)

This last part excludes or negates absolute necessity (absolute = de Re)

So the whole saying points to de dicto necessity. De Dicto Necessity means we make one choice when there are other possibilities. De Re Necessity means there is one choice and there were no other possibilities.


Argument A:

1. Necessarily, if God foreknows x, then x will happen.

2. If God is omniscient, God foreknows x.

3. Therefore, x will happen.

is true

Argument B:

“1. Necessarily, if God foreknows x, then x will happen.

2. If God is omniscient, God foreknows x.

3. Therefore, x will ‘necessarily’ happen.”

is not true


1.Necessarily, if God foreknows efficaciously a certain salutary act will be performed freely then it will be accomplished (it will happen)

2.If God foreknows all things, God foreknows this salutary act will freely be accomplished

3.Therefore, the salutary act will freely be accomplished


From p139:

If God Wills efficaciously a certain salutary act be performed, such as the good thief or St. Paul, this act infallibly though freely is accomplished, according to a necessity not of consequent but of consequence (then goes into the Socrates example).


My comment: My opinion, maybe another way of looking at this saying is:

Original: Just as it is necessary for Socrates to sit whilst he is seated, though it is optional for him to be seated

Modified: Socrates chose to sit before he was seated, therefore, just as it is necessary for Socrates to sit whilst he is seated, though it is optional for him to be seated


Socrates when seated can rise, but he is never at the same time both seated and standing

(De Dicto Necessity)


My Comment: I think this means Socrates has the power to resist but can never at the same time resist and do (not resist).


Absolute Necessity = Necessity of Consequence (De Re)(specific)

Conditional Necessity = Necessity of Consequent (De Dicto)(unspecific)


(Same as Socrates saying)

Here’s an example:

I am sitting in a chair. Thus, it is necessarily true that I am sitting (for x=x necessarily, I am sitting, therefore I am sitting). But this kind of necessity is de dicto. It does not follow that I am necessarily sitting in the de re sense, for if that were true, I could simply not do otherwise. I could never get up.


************************************************


The Thomists and Trent say that “under the influence of the divine efficacious motion, the Will still has the power to resist. It can resist if it so Wills, but under the influence of efficacious Grace it never so Wills, just as Socrates when seated can rise, but he is never at the same time both seated and standing....it implies a contradiction for the Will, when the judgement is indifferent, to be necessitated by the divine motion, which is itself efficacious.” (Billuart, Course in Theology, 1759)


My Comment: One important proposition from this paragraph:


Man’s Judgement is indifferent (Free Will)

Man’s judgement is necessitated (contradicts Free Will)

Speaking of when God’s Grace is said to be efficacious man’s Will is free under a dominating indifference which contradicts efficacious Grace, in theory or logic, can be resisted.


Socrates Saying - includes Other Possibilities (de Dicto)


My Comment: VERY IMPORTANT: Also, with the Socrates saying, one object (target) does not eliminate other objects (targets). Does not eliminate all other possibilities.


GL Propositions:

(Remember the Intellect is important here)


The Will cannot Will an unknown good

The Will cannot Will any other good than that which is proposed to it

The Will cannot Will by necessity what is proposed to it that is not desirable

The act defined by this object cannot but be free

The divine efficacious motion cannot change its own nature

(I think this is because God’s grace frees the will so the will cannot be free and not free at the same time)

The divine efficacious motion is therefore non-necessitating

(If man’s will is free, the divine will cannot be necessitating)


My Comment: By definition, when Grace is Efficacious, the salutary act is done. This act is free if the object is known, desirable and proposed to the intellect. The divine efficacious motion then moves the Will freely to choose the particular object (the good). The key is that there are contingencies: the object has to be known, desirable and proposed to the intellect. The will has to be free and, with contingencies, by definition, it is free. I think one contingency could also be simply to choose not to do something.)


GL: When the motion is efficacious, it causes the Will infallibly to Will freely this particular good rather than that other; it is in this sense that it is Predetermining (He then points to the third objection, Aquinas, STh., I-II q.10 a.4):


P277


Reply Obj. 3. If God moves the will to anything, it is incompatible with this supposition, that the will be not moved thereto. But it is not impossible simply. Consequently it does not follow that the will is moved by God necessarily.

 

[LaGrange]

GL: The Will truly has the power to perform the contrary act, but this act, which is really possible, is never really present under the influence of efficacious grace; for this latter would be no longer efficacious. That is why actual resistance is said to be incompatible with efficacious grace. So Socrates when sitting has it in his power to stand, but he cannot at the same time stand and sit; he must sit, while he is seated.....this affirms an infallible, but non-necessitating Predetermination.


My Comment: Awesome! Socrates explained!!!!

To look at these sayings again:

Socrates when seated can rise, but he is never at the same time both seated and standing (p276)

Just as it is necessary for Socrates to sit whilst he is seated (Consequence), though it is optional for him to be seated (Consequent)(p139)

When putting both the Intellect and Will together, I think Fr Garrigou-LaGrange is saying that it is “possible” for the “Will” to resist but, because the grace is efficacious in this case, the “Intellect” is inclined to the good so the Will is going to do the good. The intellect is directed or inclined stronger toward a particular object and then the Will is moved and then moves itself to that object.


My Comment: It also helps to see the same process when using only our Natural Free Wills.


This is not from the LaGrange’s book but here’s Aquinas’ quote on Socrates:

In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. (STh., I q.19 a.3)


(6) Premotion 3


Non-Necessitating (continued)


P277


Other ways of expressing a non-necessitating predetermination:


From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will. (STh., I q.19 a.8 ad 3)


Now, He foresaw that it would happen contingently. It follows then infallibly that it will be, contingently and not of necessity. (SCG, 3.94)


Compossible = able or possible to coexist with another


GL: The distinction between possible and the compossible is tantamount to the distinction between the divided and composite senses, as St. Thomas points out hence says: “The fact that God Wills any created thing is necessary on the supposition that He so Wills, on account of the immutability (unchanging) of the divine Will, but it is not necessary absolutely.” (STh., I q.23 a.6 ad 3)


Necessity of Consequence = Conditional Necessity


GL: In other words, there is necessity of consequence or a conditional necessity, but not of consequent as in the case of a strict syllogism, the minor of which is contingent. Then he goes on to say:

“so the same must be said of predestination. Wherefore one ought not to say that God is able not to predestinate one whom He has predestinated, taking it in a composite sense, though, absolutely speaking, God can predestinate or not. But in this way the certainty of predestination is not destroyed. (Another place: STh., I q.14 a.13)


P278


St. Thomas speaks just as clearly in his Treatise on Grace:

“God’s intention cannot fail.....Hence if God intends, while moving, that the one whose heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to Jo. 6:45: Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me. (STh., I-II q.112 a.3)



“the Holy Ghost, Who does unfailingly whatever He wills to do. Hence it is impossible for these two things to be true at the same time,—that the Holy Ghost should will to move a certain man to an act of charity, and that this man, by sinning, should lose charity. For the gift of perseverance is reckoned among the blessings of God whereby whoever is delivered, is most certainly delivered, as Augustine says in his book on the Predestination of the saints (De Dono Persev. xiv.). (STh., II-II q.24 a.11)


So as we see for St. Thomas the foreseeing of a free determination that would depend solely on ourselves is not the foundation for this divine certainty. It has its foundation in a decree of the divine Will, the execution of which is assured by the divine motion.


My Comment: God’s Foreknowledge includes contingencies. This is a conditional necessity.


**************************************************

This is not from Garrigou-LaGrange’s Book


De Dicto Necessity - Necessity with other possibilities

De Re Necessity - Necessity without other possibilities


Hypothetical Syllogism edit | edit source

The second kind of compound proposition is a conditional proposition: we can call these statements If/Then statements, where the "If" part is the antecedant and the part following after "Then" is the consequent. A conditional that contains conditional statements exclusively is called a pure hypothetical


Syllogism:


Example:

P1: If you study (antecedent), then you will become a good student (consequent).

P2: If you become a good student, then you will go to college (consequent) Therefore, If you study, then you will go to college (consequent)


If x then y

If y then z therefore if x then z


Notice that the first premise and the conclusion have the same antecedent, and the second premise and the conclusion have the same consequent. It should be clear why hypothetical syllogisms provide the clearest example of why syllogisms preserve truth value - for this format also for a set of equivalencies.


My Comment: think of the example of the Ninivites

De Dicto Necessity is something that is done out of necessity without totally excluding other possibilities.

If I choose one thing I could have chosen something else. (Free Will is compatible with Foreknowledge - STh., II-II q.174 a.1)

****************************************************


All these texts presuppose a divine predetermining but non-necessitating decree, which extends even to the free mode of our acts; and they affirm the presence of a divine motion that assures the infallible execution of this decree. In this sense, too, it is justly said to be predetermining and non-necessitating.


My Comment: There are 2 things here:

(1) Decree - Predetermining and non-necessitating

(2) Motion - infallible execution of the decree


P279


Divine Predetermining Non-Necessitating Decree (cont)


It causes the Will infallibly to determine itself, to perform this particular act rather than a certain other, and it causes in us and with us all that there is of reality and goodness in this act. (STh., I q.23 a.5)

Only evil, which is a disorder, is not included within the scope of its causality; it is excluded from the adequate object of Omnipotence, and far more so than sound is from the object of sight (STh., I-II q.79 a.1).

God does not need to create a Motion so that He will have infallible knowledge of our acts. Thomists never claimed this. Some thought this. It’s the other way around: God knows our free acts in His eternal decree, and that His Motion assures its execution in time.


P280


How does the Divine Motion adapt itself to the very nature of the Secondary Cause?


The divine motion is actively modified by our Will which receives it, for the Will, in so far as it receives, is passive. But God adapts Himself in His motion to the nature of Secondary Causes, which means that He moves them according to their nature. Thus a great artist adapts his motion to the various instruments which he uses. (Tommaso Maria Zigliara, Teaching of Sacred Theology, book 3, ch 4, 1800’s)

Heb 13:21 Fit you in all goodness, that you may do his will; doing in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Aquinas says “When God incites a person to be of good Will, He applies him...inwardly; and this is the way that God alone fits a will (makes him apt), because He alone can change it: ‘The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever he will he will turn (incline) it’ (Prov 21:1) (Clem Latin Vulgate = inclinabit = turn or Bow (like bow and arrow?). Hence, he says, working in you: ‘It is God who works in us both to will and to accomplish’ (Phil 2:13). But what will He do? That which is pleasing in his sight, i.e., He will make you will what pleases Him. (Comm on Hebrews, Heb 13:21, #770).


My Comment: This means that God adapts His motion to our Will after we receive it. This means that God moves us according to our nature.

 

[LaGrange]

P280-81


Physical Premotion entitled to be called a simultaneous Concurrence


Physical Premotion is entitled to be called a simultaneous Concurrence when the Will is already in act. It differs from Molina’s in this, that it is primarily a Premotion to apply the secondary cause to act (Goudin, Antoine (O.P.), 1639-1695, On Premotion, a.2)

Under the influence of this concurrence, the secondary cause becomes the instrumental cause of what is more universal in the effect produced, namely, of its very being in so far as it is being; whereas it is the proper cause of this effect in so far as it is this individual effect. Thus my Will is the proper cause of my voluntary act and the instrumental cause of the very being of this act, in virtue of the principle: “For the more universal effects must be reduced to the more universal and prior causes.” (STh., I q.45 a.5)


My Comment: The Motion comes in and adapts itself to our Will and then our Will becomes the proper cause of the particular act. Our Will becomes the instrumental cause (subordinate cause) of the being (essence) of this act.


GL: Analogy: In like manner this apple tree is the proper cause of this particular fruit, although God is the proper cause of the being of this same fruit.


My Comment: Our Will causes the act but God causes the essence of the same act. This seems to describe Providence too.


P281


Summation of Physical Premotion and dispel the the common false notions:


(1) It is a motion received in the created operative potency in order to apply it to act. It is therefore a motion distinct both from the uncreated action that it presupposes, and from our action that follows it at the same moment. Efficacious Grace is neither God nor the salutary act to which it is ordained. Thus our action remains truly our own; it is not created in us from nothing, but proceeds vitally from our faculty that is applied to its act by the divine Premotion.


My Comment: This means the motion is like something (Grace) placed or put in us (bestowal) in potential so that our acting on it through our Wills really comes from us. This is describing motion as to be Grace, which is distinct from God Himself.


P282


(2) It is a physical motion, as regards the exercise of the act, and not a moral motion, or as regards the specification of the act, a motion that results from the attraction of a proposed object. Of all the agents that are distinct from our Will, God is the only one, moreover, who can so move it interiorly according to its natural inclination to seek universal good, which He alone was able to give it. Under the influence of this motion, it moves itself.


My Comment: This motion is intrinsic. The Will is not moved by an objective attraction, which I think is like rearranging circumstances, to lead or point one to the intended object. The Will must be moved to act.


(3) It is a Premotion according to a priority not of time, but of reason and causality.


My Comment: The motion is the First Cause not in time because it is instantaneous with the reception in the Secondary Cause, but in Cause meaning power.


(4) It is Predetermining, according to a causal Predetermination distinct from the formal Predetermination of the act that follows it. This means that it moves our Will by an intrinsic and infallible efficacy to determine itself to perform this determinate good act rather than a certain other. The determination to perform a bad act, since it is itself bad and deficient, for this reason does nt come from God, but from a defectible and deficient Liberty. The divine predetermining motion is therefore non-necessitating, for, like the divine predetermining decrees, the execution of which it assures, it extends even to the production in us and with us of the free mode of our acts, which is still being, and this it is included in the adequate object of Omnipotence, and besides this there is only evil.


(7) Premotion 4


P285-292


All that was just quoted that Aquinas said about Motion proves that this doctrine was his own.


Synthesis of the Texts of Premotion


My Comment: I read this chapter but didn’t take notes because it was a reiteration of what was said before.


P293-294


Skipped


P295


Reasons for Affirming Physical Premotion (pp 295-315)


3 Reasons:

(1) In General

(2) Divine Decrees concerning our salutary acts

(3) Explain the Efficacy of Grace


(1) In General

Thomists give 2 reasons:


(1-1) God is the First Mover and First Cause


God is the First Mover even in the action and subordinates all secondary causes

Physical Premotion safeguards God’s primacy of causality


P296


Definition of Premotion


Subordination in action follows subordination in being (action follows being)

Reason for Subordination:

The first Cause moves or “Applies” the secondary cause to act:

“where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the first agent moves the second to act. And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself (STh., I q.105 a.5) This is the definition of Physical Premotion.


My Comment: I inserted this quote here:

GL: God’s Decree or Will Predetermines a salutary act then God’s Omnipotence (Premotion) moves the Will, not by force, to assure the execution of the decree (p310)


(1-2) Indigence of the secondary cause


Need of movement of the secondary cause -

Major: Every cause that is not itself actually in act, but only in potentiality to act, needs to be physically premoved to act. Now such is the case with every created cause, even the free cause.

Minor: Therefore every created cause needs to be physically premoved to act.


The movement from actually to act is a greater perfection than being able to act. If the faculty to act were not moved, it would always remain in a state of potency and would never act.

“For everything that is at one time an agent actually, and at another time an agent in potentiality, needs to be moved by a mover.” (STh., I-II q.9 a.4)


P297


My Comment: All that was said above has to do with our Natural Free Will. It’s the same with Supernatural Free Will.


Free Cause - Supernatural Free Will

Free Cause is moved by God. No exception.


For the Free Cause, for its action, as being, depends upon the First Being; its action as action, upon the first agent; and as a free action, upon the first free.

Aquinas: I answer that, The act of sin is both a being and an act; and in both respects it is from God. (STh., I-II q.79 a.1)

That the human Will may freely obey God it needs a special divine motion or a grace that, without forcing it, will cause it actually and freely to make its choice.

My Comment: This means our determination to a free act (Supernatural Free Will) is first moved by God just as one out of a natural necessity.


To recap: There is one reason, in general, why Thomists affirm Physical Premotion. There are 2 aspects of the one reason: on God’s part, the primacy of His causality, and as regards the created cause, the indigence of this latter.


(1-3) Insufficiency of other explanations


The 2 reasons above are not safeguarded.

(a) simultaneous Concurrence - does not move the secondary cause to act. With this simultaneous concurrence God would be only the co-principle of our acts, but not the first cause.

(b) Moral Motion does not explain it - it does not explain the subordination of causes in the physical order of efficient causality. God is not the First Cause only by way of attraction or end. This would mean God was the First Mover only as regards agents endowed with intellect.

(c) Durandus Argument - that God gave to secondary causes and preserves in them the faculty of action. St. Thomas excludes this opinion as erroneous:

 

[LaGrange]

P299


Therefore no created substance can move the will except by means of the good understood: in so far, to wit, as it shows it that a particular thing is good to do: and this is to persuade. Therefore no created substance can act on the will, or cause our choice, except by way of persuasion.(SCG 3.88)



My Comment: This opinion of Durandus (Durandus of Saint-Pourçain) was the same as Pelagius. I think this is what GL is saying.


Also, this view doesn’t explain and establish the subordination of causes in action but merely in being. Action follows being. Dependence in action follows Dependence in being. The order of agents corresponds to the order of ends, and therefore the most universal efficient cause can move to universal good which, as such, is realized in God alone (STh., I q.105 a.4). Every other cause would necessitate, which means that it could not cause in us and with us that our acts should be performed freely (STh., I-II q.10 a.4).


Virtual (def)- being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted (ex: a virtual dictator) (Webster’s)


Suarez objected to this, saying that our Will is “of itself”, if not formally at least virtually, in act, and that thus it can pass into act without a divine motion.

“To the last question we reply that in voluntary actions, power and knowledge (as stated in Metaph. ix, 2, 5) are brought into action by the will: wherefore in God power and knowledge are described in universal terms as being without limit, as when we say that God is all-knowing and almighty: whereas the will, seeing that it is the determining force, cannot cover all things, but only those to which it determines power and knowledge: hence God cannot be called all-willing.” (De Potentia , Disputed Questions, Q.1, A.7)


My Comment: I think this is the quote that Suarez was commenting on.

My Comment: Suarez is saying that our Will receives its power in potential and then we use it and do the act ourself with it.


P300


GL response: The answer is that the virtual act is distinct from the action resulting from it. Is there or is there not a becoming in this? Is it’s action eternal or, on the contrary, did it appear in in time? This appearance is something new, and this becoming presupposes an active power which was not its own activity, which did not even act but was only able to act. And then, how does the virtual act reduce itself to the second act which it did not have? ... The virtual act was therefore reduced to its second act by an eternal mover which, in the last analysis, must be its own activity and which cannot be the subject of becoming. The reply to Suarez has often been before the created Will acts, its act is contained in it not virtually and eminently, as God contains creatures and as the divine intuition contains human reasoning; but it is contained virtually and potentially, which means that it can produce its act as a secondary cause acting under the influence of the primary cause.


My Comment: GL is saying that the virtual act is God’s action and it’s distinct from our action. I think this is even separate from the potential to act which is the cause. The potential (power) to act happens when the intellect and Will are elevated and inclined to a new object (salutary act). God moves the Will from the potential to act to the action itself. He is saying Suarez’s view is that when he says that God acts “virtually and potentially”, we move ourselves without God’s internal activity within our activity to perform the act. The salutary act itself is distinct from the virtual act itself yet they are intertwined in the act.


Moreover, it is not enough to say that God moves man to be happy, or to Will good in general; for when our Will afterwards Wills some particular good, there is then a new actuality, which must depend as being upon the first Being, as free act upon the first Free, as ultimate actuality upon the supreme Actuality who is pure Act, and, if this free act is good and salutary, it must depend as such, not only by reason of its object, but also as to the exercise of its act, upon the source of all good and the Author of salvation. St. Thomas said too: And hence no matter how perfect a corporeal or spiritual nature is supposed to be, it cannot proceed to its act unless it be moved by God.” (STh., I-II q.109 a.1)


Salutary (def)- producing a beneficial effect (Webster’s)


My Comment: An object that is good and salutary must have a mover to move the Will to act.


Conclusion: These are the general reasons to affirm Physical Premotion.


(2) Divine Decrees concerning our salutary acts (and Physical Premotion)


My Thought: If God gives us the power to act but does not incline us in the act itself all the way to the completion of the act, then God, after giving us the power, has, through the object, manipulated us to do and complete the act. This means God is being determined by us instead of us being determined by God.


Divine Decrees - God determining or determined?


P301


God predetermines our salutary acts


(2-1) Scriptural Texts


God has from all eternity determined our salutary acts or else He is passive or dependent on His knowledge as regards the free determination made by a certain man if placed in certain circumstances (and it is only for God to place him or not in these circumstances). If this free determination does not come from God, then He is not the author but merely the spectator of it. (Esther 13:9, 11, 17; 15:11) From these verses we see that the infallibility and efficacy of the decree of God’s Will have their foundation evidently in His omnipotence and not in the foreseen consent of King Assuerus. This makes St. Augustine say when explaining these words: “And now God had heard her that it should be done, who changed the heart of the king by a most secret and efficacious power before he had heard the address of the woman beseeching him, and moulded it from indignation to mildness,—that is, from the will to hurt, to the will to favour,—according to that word of the apostle, “God worketh in you to will also.” (To Boniface, ch 20)


My Comment: God physically (Intrinsic) changed the heart and didn’t try to change the circumstances to get the King to change his mind. God worked inside the king in such a way that the king had a change in heart, that is, God changed his heart and he then changed his own heart.


P302


Examples in Scripture


God changes the heart

Here are more verses: Ps 113:11, Pr 21:1, Eccl 33:13; Is 14:24-27

 

[LaGrange]

P303


God gives even the good consent: Ezek 36:26-28, John 15:5, Matt 24:24, John 10:27-30


When Jesus speaks of the “Hour” of His passion, He says that it has from all eternity been determined by a divine decree and that before this hour no one will be able to lay hands on Him. God is therefore the master

of the human Will to such an extent that it cannot sin except at the time permitted by God from all eternity. The sin also has been permitted without God being directly or indirectly the cause of it: John 7:30 (#1068, 1069) John 13:1 (#1732, 1733), John 17:1 (#2180) (Aquinas, Commentary on John).

We have observed that the “hour” appointed by providence is not of necessity determined. Now this is the hour of Christ’s greatest free act. The act is one that had therefore been from all eternity the object of a divine positive predetermining decree. It is also the hour of the greatest sin, that of decide. This act had been from all eternity the object of a divine decree that was not positive but permissive, so that the sin was not due to happen before this hour, or in any other way except that permitted by God. (STh III., q.46 a.2; STh., III q.47 a.3,6)


My Comment:

The “Hour” was not determined by Necessity.

God positively predetermined it.

The “Sin” of Judas was not determined by Necessity. God permissively predetermined it.


P304


God predetermines our Salutary Acts (cont)


Acts 2:23-24 This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up...


Notice: The Determinate Counsel precedes Foreknowledge:

Aquinas says “...by His eternal will He preordained Christ’s Passion for the deliverance of the human race, according to the words of Isaias (53:6): The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquities of us all; and again (verse 10): The Lord was pleased to bruise Him in infirmity.” (STh., III q.47 a.3)


My Comment:

The Determinate Counsel (Plan) precedes God’s Foreknowledge (Prognosis - Prediction)

The Plan is before the Prediction (Prophecy)

This means God predetermines our Salutary Acts.


Acts 10:40-41 Him God raised up the third day and gave him to be made manifest, Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God...


GL: The effect of this is upon the gentiles as follows:


Acts 13:48 And the Gentiles hearing it were glad and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting believed.


My Comment:

(1) God Predetermined (preordained) certain men (not all) to give witness to Christ’s Resurrection

(When it says, “not to all the people”, this does not mean limited atonement. It means God chose certain men and women to witness that Christ had resurrected from the dead)

(2) God Predetermined those who believed to believe (They still had Liberty within God’s Predetermination)


Acts 17:26 And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times and the limits of their habitation.


My Comment: This shows the divine Predetermination. God predetermines all men.

Predetermination is the knowledge and intention but also the preparation. God prepares men in real time by Prevenient Grace.


Acts 22:13-15 Coming to me and standing by me, said to me: Brother Saul, look up. And I, the same hour, looked upon him. 14 But he said: The God of our fathers hath preordained thee that thou shouldst know his will and see the Just One and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth. 15 For thou shalt be his witness...


(8) Premotion 5


P305


God predetermines our Salutary Acts (cont)


Rom 8:28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together unto good: to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.


Rom 9:11-18 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand): 12 Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid! 15 For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth.


In this text it is clear that the election , the eternal decree of the divine Will, do not depend upon the foreseen consent of the human Will. God’s sovereign independence cannot be more clearly affirmed.


1 Cor 4:7 For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received, and if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?


For since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (A. 2), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another. (STh., I q.20 a.3)


P306


It is the principle of Predilection, which applies both in the natural and supernatural orders, and this for salutary acts either difficult or easy to perform. God’s love for us is efficacious of itself and not because of our foreseen good consent. God is the primary cause of this good consent.


My Comment: Salutary acts are predetermined by God through God’s love for us. This is the Principle of Predilection.


How is Physical Premotion reconciled with The Principle of Predilection? That is an inscrutable mystery.


P307


Divine Decrees concerning our Salutary Acts (and Physical Premotion) (contd)


Meaning: The free determination of the salutary act comes, as from its primary source, from God


(2-2) Theological Argument


Ps 113:11 But our God is in heaven: he hath done all things whatsoever he would.


Divine Consequent (or Non-Conditional Will)


It is the same doctrine St. Thomas uses when he speaks of the divine consequent:

“for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.” (STh., I q.19 a.6)


Principle of the Distinction of Efficacious and Sufficient Grace


In this quote (STh., I q.19 a.6) St. Thomas gives us the principle of the distinction between intrinsically efficacious Grace (which infallibly assures the execution of the divine consequent Will for salutary acts, whether they be easy or difficult), and sufficient Grace ( which corresponds to the divine antecedant Will by which God Wills to make it possible for all to keep the commandments and obtain salvation).


Why does St. Thomas think that everything God Wills by His Consequent or Unconditional Will is infallibly fulfilled?


The reason St. Thomas gives is not because of our foreseen consent but because:

“Something may fall outside the order of any particular active cause, but not outside the order of the universal cause; under which all particular causes are included...” (STh., I q.19 a.6)


P308


Only the good which God willed or the evil He permitted can happen; for no secondary cause can act without His concurring in the act.


Predetermining Decrees must be admitted regarding our salutary acts in order to solve the dilemma: God determining or determined. Thus we must admit a certain passivity or dependence in God as regards the free decision that a certain man would make if placed in certain circumstances, and that he will make if actually placed in such circumstances.

 

[LaGrange]

P309


Predetermining Physical Premotion and the Efficacy (Power) of Grace


It is of Faith that God grants us efficacious Graces which are not only followed by the good consent of the Will, but which in a certain manner produce it: for efficacious or effective Grace makes us act. The Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians denied this.


My Comment: This means that God’s Grace not only brings us to consent but also makes us do the act.


P310


The Council of Orange explaining Phil 2:13, “For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will”, said “Can. 4. If anyone contends that in order that we may be cleansed from sin, God waits for our good will, but does not acknowledge that even the wish to be purged is produced in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit, he opposes the Holy Spirit Himself, who says through Solomon: “Good will is prepared by the Lord” [Prov. 8:35: LXX], and the Apostle who beneficially says: “It is God, who works in us both to will and to accomplish according to his good will” [Phil. 2:13]. [Denz #177 (374)]


Now Grace, which causes us to perform a good act, which works in us both to Will and accomplish, makes us do the good deed, is not merely virtually efficacious (in actu primo) in the sense that it gives us really the power to act in a salutary manner, for this power is already given by sufficient Grace even when the salutary effect does not follow; but it is actually efficacious or effective, for, as the Council of Orange says: “Can. 9. “The assistance of God. It is a divine gift, both when we think rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may work” [St. Prosper].3 [Denz #182 (379)]


My Comment: Phil 2:13 is the definition of Actual Grace (see also Baltimore Catechism, #113). The Power to act (Potential) is already given in Sufficient Grace. This means that the Grace is Efficacious in the act or practically speaking. In other words, the power is there with Sufficient Grace but, as the consent and the act begin to happen, the Grace is already (Actually) Efficacious.


P311-315


No notes - LaGrange goes through a few reasons against the Molinist View that pretty much he has already gone through.


P316


The Divine Motion and the Freedom of our Salutary Acts


Does the Divine Motion destroy Liberty or Free Will?


Thomism is accused of this like Calvinism.


Calvinism condemned by the Council of Trent:


Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797]. [Council of Trent, Denz #814 [DS 1554)]


Sirach 15:14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. (Aquinas used in STh I-II q.10 a.4)


Aquinas solved this (I q.19 a.8 ; I q.115 a.4 ; I-II q.10 a.4) God does not impose Necessity on all things.



Dominicans - Dominicans say that Grace does not destroy Free Will but perfects it.

Calvinists - Free Will does not Cooperate with the divine action (Operative Grace)


P317


The Thomist, Dominic Soto, was engaged in drawing up the Canons at the Council of Trent.


Luther - Luther denied this Instrinsic Efficacious Divine Motion because he said it could not be reconciled with Free Will. The Canon (Canon 4) above may have been made to prove this same Motion.


My Comment: This is what seems to be hard to reconcile: The Infallible Intrinsic Efficacious Motion with Free Will

Although man does not resist it, he retains the power to do so (when Socrates sits...)


Molinism - The Thomists say the Scientia Media destroys Free Will because it “Determines” the Circumstances! If it determines the circumstances then it is determining man.


P318


Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?


Aquinas: Man’s Will is moved of Necessity by God

God cannot be resisted (Rom 9:19)

Every agent that cannot be resisted is moved by necessity

This agent causes the being to move but to move freely (STh., I-II q.10 a.4)

The being moves freely under the influence of Efficacious Grace

Efficacious Grace actualizes man’s Free Will in the order of good

Man no longer has a potential or passive indifference but rather has an actual and active indifference (dominating indifference)


This agent causes the being to move but to move freely:

Aquinas: And therefore it would be more repugnant to the Divine motion, for the will to be moved of necessity, which is not fitting to its nature; than for it to be moved freely, which is becoming to its nature. (STh., I-II q.10 a.4)


P319


The freedom in our act is produced in us by God - This is the actualization of Free Will


The divine motion does not force the Will because it operates according to the natural inclination of the Will. It inclines the Will first toward its adequate object, which is universal good, and only after this toward an inadequate object, which is some particular good. In the first case the divine motion causes the act to be free. It operates interiorly, as was just said, in the very depths of the Will, as to the universality of the same, and in a sense inclines the Will toward every degree of good, before giving it the inclination to tend toward some particular good. (John of St. Thomas, 1589-1644, Cursus Theology)


My Comment: God frees the Will generally, which opens it up to doing good in general, and then inclines the Will toward some particular good. Freeing the Will in general first creates the Free Will in man.


P320


Titus 3:5 Not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us....


In this way, our Free Act proceeds “entirely” from us as Secondary Cause and “entirely” from God as First Cause:


STh., I q.23 a.5


Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause.


When after deliberation, we perform the act, in virtue of the inversely scope of our Will and our independence of judgement that is not necessitated by the object, we retain the power not to perform the act:


Sirach 15:14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.


STh., I-II q.10 a.4


Since, therefore, the will is an active principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.


My Comment: This means man’s Will is truly made free by God first then man is totally free to choose. This being free to choose means that there truly is more than one choice so that, after he chooses the good, he could have chosen to do something else.


Propositions:

If our Free Will determined itself “Alone”, then our Will would be exactly the same as God’s Will

Our Will would be an “Image” of God’s Will

(My Comment above is saying the same thing)


Just as easy to:


Reconcile Created Liberty and Intrinsically Efficacious Divine Motion

AND

Reconcile God’s Free Act and God’s Immutability


God’s Free Act and God’s Immutability

Propositions:


In God freedom of action is not the dominating “Potential” Indifference of a faculty that is capable of acting or not acting

In God freedom of action is the dominating Indifference of Pure Act with regard to everything created

Under the influence of the Efficacious divine motion, our Liberty is no longer potential indifference but Actual Indifference

The Actualization does not destroy Liberty


My Comment: This means God is actively Willing everything. God Wills (Causes) all things but Secondary Causes have defects and, therefore, have effects (results) that are not what God Willed (wanted to happen).